Scotland: Independence
	 — 
	Question

Lord Flight: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the event of the result of the Scottish referendum in 2014 being in favour of independence, whether they expect Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies to be eligible to stand for election in the 2015 General Election; and, if so, what will happen on the date of Scottish independence in 2016.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, in the event that a majority of people in Scotland vote for independence in the referendum in September, Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and all its institutions, including the UK Parliament, after a process of negotiation. The timing for any changes would have to be settled in the event of a vote for independence.

Lord Flight: My Lords, I am sure we all hope and expect that the Scottish vote will be in favour of the union but, surely, all eventualities need to be catered for. If Scotland votes for independence, it would be inappropriate for there to be Scottish MPs at Westminster thereafter. What precisely are the arrangements before implementation of Scottish independence, should it be voted for, in 2016?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, there would be a process of negotiation. Obviously, laws passed by this Parliament set out the arrangements for elections and it would be a matter for Parliament to change the arrangements if it so wished. I take the first point of my noble friend’s Question. I think I say for colleagues on all sides of the House that, while we support the integrity of the United Kingdom, we should be making every effort to ensure that the eventuality of a yes vote in the independence referendum simply does not arise.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: My Lords, one issue that those Members of Parliament might have to address in that eventuality would be the position in relation to the currency. Does the noble and learned Lord welcome the very thoughtful and balanced contribution to the debate on the currency in Scotland made today by the Governor of the Bank of England? Will he join me in urging others who head up our great national institutions, whether in Scotland or throughout the UK, to contribute in a similar fashion to ensure
	that the complexities of the decisions that are required afterwards are fully understood and that the people in Scotland have all the information they need to make the right decision?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously said, the current arrangements of a full monetary, fiscal and political union bring benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly have noted that the Governor of the Bank of England today has highlighted the principal difficulties of entering into a currency union—losing national sovereignty, the practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out a foreign country. That is why we have consistently said that, in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed so the Scottish Government need a plan B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that people who, from experience, have an important contribution to make should make it. Indeed, this month, Better Together has published a very good pamphlet which quotes many people showing how untenable the position of the Scottish Government is on the issue of the currency.

Lord Stephen: My Lords, is it not vital that we all spend the time between now and the referendum in September working together and positively campaigning in favour of Scotland staying part of Great Britain and part of the United Kingdom? Speculating on the constitutional detail of what will happen if there is a yes vote in the referendum does not necessarily help in that united campaign.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is vital that our focus is on ensuring that there is a substantial no vote in the referendum in September and that we set out the benefits. Ahead of the debate in your Lordships’ House tomorrow morning, I hope later this afternoon to send out to noble Lords the 20 positive reasons—there are many more—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out earlier this month together with links to the 10 analysis papers published so far in Scotland, which make a very compelling case for the integrity of the United Kingdom and for Scotland remaining part of it.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that even in the event of a no vote in Scotland, which I very much hope for, there are questions to be addressed about our variegated devolution settlements with parts of the United Kingdom? Does he not further agree that thought about that should take place now rather than in a rush after an unexpected and unhoped for yes vote?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Baroness makes an important point. There are important issues about our current constitutional arrangements in all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have shown by our implementation of the Calman report proposals, through the Scotland Act 2012 and the way
	that we are taking forward the proposals of the Silk commission in relation to Wales that we are alert to these. But I am certain that a no vote in September will not bring an end to these discussions. All parties and even people without parties have an important contribution to make to those discussions.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, if there is a yes vote, it is important to remember that the rest of the United Kingdom will be diminished as a result; with one-fifth of our land mass, 5 million of our population and 10% of our GDP. The big picture is that both national and international issues are involved. Therefore, the voices of the Scottish diaspora need to be mobilised, and also the voices of the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish who value an entity that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. It is important that people not only from the diaspora but from other parts of the United Kingdom speak up and say how valued Scotland is as part of a family of nations, which is one of the great success stories of modern history. Scotland is obviously better within the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is also better with Scotland in it.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that the answer of the Scottish Nationalists to my noble friend Lord Flight’s question is symptomatic of the fantasy politics that they are putting forward? When he asks what the position of Scottish MPs would be in the House of Commons if they were elected after a vote for independence, their official policy is that we should postpone the date of the general election until 2016.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I did in fact notice that. I am not quite sure what it says about democracy—that people should be denied the chance to elect new Members of Parliament. I also bear in mind that the date that they set for this referendum was after this Parliament had agreed to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which had already set the date for the next general election.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, would there even be a United Kingdom if the vote was a positive one? After all, Northern Ireland is not a kingdom and never has been, and Wales is a Principality. “United Kingdom” refers to the fact that there are the two kingdoms of England and of Scotland. Will we have to change the name of this country in such an eventuality?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All I would say is that, having been part of a party which merged and spent a long time deciding its name, I do not want to start speculating about what might happen if we start breaking up.

Children: Racist and Islamophobic Bullying
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Hussein-Ece: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to address the reported increase in the number of children who contacted Childline in the last year complaining of racist and Islamophobic bullying.

Lord Nash: My Lords, all schools must have a behaviour policy with measures to prevent all forms of bullying. Ofsted specifically considers how well schools tackle bullying and discrimination and we have strengthened teachers’ powers to discipline pupils for poor behaviour including bullying. We are also providing £4 million to four anti-bullying organisations to tackle bullying in schools. The new curriculum also offers opportunities to address some of the underlying causes of bullying, including racist bullying, through developing greater understanding and tolerance.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that ChildLine reported a 69% increase in this form of bullying in the past year alone, where students were forced to go to ChildLine rather than go to their school to have this matter addressed? Is he aware that ChildLine further said that it links this specifically to the intemperate language being used around immigration and with Muslim children being called “bombers” and “terrorists”? Will this be specifically taken up and systems put in place so that teachers can deal with it at source rather than children having to go to ChildLine?

Lord Nash: My Lords, every school must have a policy and systems in place and bullying in school at any time is completely unacceptable. The Government are funding Show Racism the Red Card until the end of March to deliver workshops to 10,000 young people in schools. Of course I entirely agree with my noble friend that all of us in public life have a duty to behave responsibly and set positive examples.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I was the first substantive chief executive of ChildLine and while I was there we produced a booklet in which children talked about racism. That was 15 years ago and it was one of our most in-demand booklets. It was especially in demand among schools which used it as a base for discussions among young people. Could Ofsted also look at how peer groups are developed? The other thing that ChildLine found was that it was far more progressive when young people worked together with other young people and talked about these issues, rather than direct teaching.

Lord Nash: The noble Baroness is extremely experienced in these matters. Ofsted does look specifically at all types of bullying—cyberbullying and race and religion-related bullying—and in its inspectors’ handbook it says that they will look at the,
	“types, rates and patterns of bullying”,
	and at the school’s effectiveness in dealing with them. The noble Baroness raises a very good point on peer groups which I will undertake to discuss with Ofsted.

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, I was a victim of racial abuse so I personally know the distress and trauma it can cause. Some children react very violently when they are racially abused at school and find themselves excluded, which is even more traumatic—they have long-term complications and implications because of it. Can my noble friend tell the House what sort of counselling and support victims of racial abuse receive from their schools?

Lord Nash: I am very sorry to hear of the distress that my noble friend suffered when she was at school. School staff should support all pupils and the nature of that support will depend on the circumstances. It may well be that the staff can support the victim adequately but otherwise the school can involve a specialist charity or organisation which can provide counselling or mentoring, such as Kidscape or Beat Bullying, which my department funds, or Place2Be, a very good counselling charity.

Lord Patel of Bradford: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, mentioned the bullying of Muslim children and their being called “bombers”, linked to the media. The Government have a clear strategy—the Prevent strategy. Can the Minister tell me how his department links into the Prevent strategy and what it is doing to support teachers in that respect?

Lord Nash: My department pays significant attention to this area and has a particular group of people who carry out due diligence for it. It is also looking at concerns or issues about extremism in schools. We are heavily focused on this.

Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what guidance and support trainee teachers get in methods of dealing with this sort of abuse and bullying and how that is built on in their continuing development programmes?

Lord Nash: We recently reduced the length of the guidance to schools on bullying from 481 pages, which of course nobody can absorb, to 11. There is a view that we may have gone slightly too far, and we are looking again at whether we should improve certain aspects. Of course, all teachers should receive behaviour management training in ITT. We are also substantially improving the amount of in-school training with the expansion of teaching schools. We have a high number of SMEs and NLEs that are especially focused in this area.

Baroness Afshar: My Lords, are the Government aware that the everyday otherisation of children in terms of their creed and colour results in their feeling that they do not belong in this society? It is hardly surprising that they grow up radicalised. Surely we have long since passed the time when you were defined by your creed or colour. What are the Government doing to eradicate from common-day parlance—in Parliament, in the papers and elsewhere—the definition of people by their religion?

Lord Nash: My Lords, our society is now multiethnic. The only way we will succeed in making it truly civilised is if we eliminate all forms of racism and all celebrate the diversity of our country—I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. We expect all schools to teach tolerance and understanding of others in PSHE. We are heavily focused on this. The new national curriculum, which will come into force in September, will offer varied opportunities for pupils to learn about different cultures and religions. The citizenship programme is heavily focused on this, and the history curriculum should also celebrate the contribution of different races and ethnic groups to the history of our country.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the underoccupancy charge on tenants.

Lord Freud: Both an impact and a quality impact assessment have already been published, although it remains too early to say how people are reacting to this change. We have commissioned a consortium to undertake a two-year monitoring of the effects of the policy. The research will include looking at the effects of the measures on supply issues, the impact on rural areas and the effects on financial circumstances and vulnerable individuals.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Social security sanctions claimants and cuts their benefits if they break the rules, say on JSA, in order to change their behaviour. But the 660,000 families affected, whose existing housing benefit is being cut by the bedroom tax, cannot change their behaviour because there is nowhere smaller for most of them to go. Two-thirds of them are, in any case, disabled, and may need the extra space. Discretionary housing payments, on which the Minister properly relies, can help only a minority even of disabled people. Does the Minister really think it fair to sanction existing tenants for misbehaviour when they have not misbehaved and when they cannot change their behaviour? Are we not punishing people who have done no wrong but who, as they face eviction, are having wrong done to them? Is that now social security’s definition of social security?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I must make clear that the removal of the spare-room subsidy is not a sanction. The numbers are down from 660,000 to 523,000, which that may indicate some behaviour trip-change, as people move to smaller places where they can. The self-declared proportion of disabled people is two-thirds, but when you look at the DLA figures it is 17% of the total. We have raised the amount of DHPs to help with the transition; we have £180 million. The signs at the moment are that there will not be a demand for all of it.

Lord Martin of Springburn: My Lords, it is bound to be the case that when tenants vacate a flat or a house, some of the properties will remain empty in parts of the United Kingdom. Will he make sure that records are kept of the cost of their upkeep, and also protect them from vandalism?

Lord Freud: My Lords, we are having an intensive review of what is happening. Clearly, there are a large number of people—1.8 million—on the waiting list who would welcome a place to live when it is vacated. We can also look to move some of the people who are living in overcrowded social accommodation; that is a large figure that I discussed with the House yesterday. That will give them some relief.

Baroness Quin: Will the Minister confirm that discretionary housing payments can cover only a fraction of the losses involved for households as a result of this measure? Research shows that it is of the order of only 6%.

Lord Freud: My Lords, clearly people will respond in different ways, which is one of the things that this policy is intended to bring about. The area with which the noble Baroness is closely associated, Gateshead, spent roughly 69% of DHP in the first half-year and put in an application for further DHP that we were pleased to match with another £130,000. This meant that it could spend roughly the same amount in the second half of the year as in the first. That contrasts with the area that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is very closely associated with. It has spent 58% of its DHP. I have not seen its application for further DHP. There is a bidding fund of £20 million that I would like to get spent. Norwich has until Monday to put in that bid, and I hope that the noble Baroness will use her very considerable energies to make sure that it does.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, with the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research showing that 42% of tenants in some parts of Wales, north-east England and north-west England think it unlikely that they will be able to pay their rent in full, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the implications of the introduction of the charge? In particular, what contingency plans do they have in case that research proves to be true?

Lord Freud: My Lords, the way in which we are handling the transition is to make sure that there are adequate discretionary housing payments. That is why we raised that figure. We know that people are making adjustments, which will take time and need funding.
	I am very pleased to see some of the innovative ways in which local authorities are responding to the challenge. Places such as Warrington and Salford are converting empty office space. They are purchasing and improving long-term empty two-bedroom homes. Derby has a home-release scheme that provides tenants with money to move—£500 for removal costs, for example. Many local authorities have revised their strategies to allow people with arrears to move, which was a block for some people. We are getting the kind of creative response from local authorities for which this policy asked.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, the party opposite says that it wishes to control welfare spending but believes that this policy should be scrapped. How does my noble friend think that equivalent savings could be made?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I have noted that the party opposite has said that it will be tougher on welfare than we are. If it is going to take £500 million of savings and put them back, and then risk matching that and paying the equivalent amount in the private sector—adding up to £1 billion a year—I do wonder where it can get that money back out of the welfare system.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, almost a quarter of a million children are in households whose benefit has been reduced because of the bedroom tax—we will be debating this later today. What impact will this have on the Government’s child poverty strategy?

Lord Freud: My Lords, we monitor child poverty very closely. I am pleased to say—and as the noble Baroness knows perfectly well—that we now have lower relative child poverty and poverty than we have seen for a very considerable time. We will go on monitoring that figure.

NHS: Cancer Treatment
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Pitkeathley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to ensure that older people receive equal access to NHS cancer treatment.

Earl Howe: In December, the national clinical director for cancer at NHS England launched a call for action on the treatment for older people. NHS England is now setting up an advisory group to identify where improvements in cancer services for older people can be made. It is also supporting an initiative to ensure that patients are better informed about the options available to them and that they are fully involved in decisions about their treatment.

Baroness Pitkeathley: I thank the Minister for that welcome Answer, but is he aware of the recently published Macmillan Cancer Support report, which shows that up to as many as 10,000 cancer patients die needlessly each year because of blatant ageism among doctors? For example, recommendations for chemotherapy
	diminish by as much as half if you are over 70. Since we are an ageing population and half of all new cancer diagnoses are in people over 70, does the Minister agree that it is of the utmost importance that we ensure that people are treated as individuals regardless of their age? How will he ensure that this view is held also among GPs and hospital consultants?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I completely agree. The noble Baroness is right that a series of reports has shown that the NHS has too often failed to provide the best possible services to older people. We cannot save lives without tackling inequalities. The NHS has a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities and to improve the health of those with the poorest outcomes. A ban on age discrimination in the NHS services was introduced in 2012, meaning that NHS services need to do everything they can to ensure that they do not discriminate against older people. We will hold the NHS to account for that through the mandate and the NHS outcomes framework.

Lord Turnberg: To what extent are these shocking figures due to lack of funding for cancer services? In that light, what is the Government’s plan for the cancer drugs fund?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that the Government pledged an additional £750 million to support the cancer strategy. We are doing that, and a range of actions are proceeding there. On the cancer drugs fund, we initially pledged a total of £600 million for the first three years of the fund and we recently pledged another £400 million, making £1 billion in all. I am pleased to say that the cancer drugs fund has so far helped more than 38,000 patients.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, some two weeks ago, the Minister agreed that, when NICE recommends that a particular form of treatment should be given to patients with cancer, rare cancers and other rare diseases, it is incumbent on clinical commissioning groups to see that those drugs are prescribed. Does the Minister agree that clinical criteria must be employed in reaching decisions as to which patients are to receive those drugs and that age alone must never be a barrier to the prescription of drugs in patients with cancers of that type?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree. The noble Lord may recall that in December 2012 we worked on a project with Macmillan Cancer Support and Age UK to improve uptake of treatment in older people. That established some key principles for the delivery of age-friendly cancer services. In December 2013, NHS England published an analysis of chemotherapy uptake in older people, and that report reaffirmed those principles and set out some new recommendations around improving the uptake of chemotherapy.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in the previous reply the Minister said he had looked at figures for chemotherapy for older people. Has he looked at the figures for radiotherapy for cancer patients of an age, in particular for intensity-modulated
	radiotherapy, which is not reaching its target but is considered a great improvement on the previous type of radiotherapy being used for cancer cases?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government invested £23 million aimed at increasing the capacity of radiotherapy centres in England to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The latest analysis shows that the median average of IMRT activity in England is at 29%, with the vast majority of centres delivering at 24% or above. That 24% was the magic figure recommended a few years ago by the national radiotherapy implementation group. We continue to monitor progress and local actions plans closely.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party cancer group. Does the Minister agree that many older people develop cancer and, therefore, to stop treatment would ensure that many Members of your Lordships’ House would not get treatment? Will he therefore take this really very seriously?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am with the noble Baroness all the way in wishing to see your Lordships live a healthy and long life but, as regards the population generally, I hope that I have made clear the Government’s determination to see that all citizens of this country receive treatment according to their ability to benefit from it.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sure we are all with the noble Baroness in those sentiments. Can I refer the noble Earl back to the research that my noble friend referred to? The report seems to show that survival rates for cancer patients over the age of 75 are very poor in this country compared with other European countries. The noble Earl has said that he will ensure that action is taken through the mandate to NHS England. Should he not give instructions to clinical commissioning groups to start commissioning cancer services with no age discrimination?

Earl Howe: My Lords, commissioning is an important ingredient in this, but there is a range of actions that we can take and have taken. We know that low levels of awareness and late diagnosis are particular problems for older patients, so it is welcome news that Public Health England is to run a national campaign to raise awareness of breast cancer in women over the age of 70. We are also raising the screening age for breast cancer to include women aged 71 to 73, and the extension of the NHS bowel cancer screening programme to men and women aged 74 is now complete.

Scottish Referendum (Consultation) Bill [HL]
	 — 
	First Reading

A Bill to make provision for certain Scottish people resident outside Scotland to be consulted ahead of the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence.
	The Bill was introduced by Lord Selsdon, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Works of Art Committee
	 — 
	Membership Motion

Moved by The Chairman of Committees
	That Lord Finkelstein be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Earl of Shrewsbury, resigned.
	Motion agreed.

Business

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I apologise for being a bit presumptuous. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to raise an issue on which I am sure the whole House would like some guidance. Will the government Chief Whip clarify her intentions as to the minimum intervals to be applied to the European Union (Referendum) Bill? It is our assumption on these Benches that, should the Bill complete its Committee stage on Friday 31 January or 7 February, Report will take place on 28 February. Can the Chief Whip confirm that that is her intention?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his courtesy in giving me advance notice that he was going to raise a question on the matter. He did not actually say what the question would be, but I got the rough idea of what it might refer to and I am genuinely grateful to him. He will be aware that I did not intend to be at Question Time today, not because I am uninterested—I listened to every word, as I always do—but because in the coalition Government I share attendance at Question Time with my coalition partner, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which is why he was here today. That is why I was not in the House earlier.
	The noble Lord asked a question about minimum intervals and, in the same breath, referred to Committee having not yet concluded. He also referred to Committee being scheduled for a later date than this coming Friday. I gently remind the House of a couple of things. First, there is a straightforward answer to all this. Matters concerning the intervals of Bills are not considered until one has secured Committee. This House has not concluded Committee, and matters to do with when Report or other stages might be follow at the end of Committee. That is the normal procedure.
	Secondly, the noble Lord refers to different dates. I took the chance to check what I said last week—I thought that my memory was okay, but we like to be sure. Towards the end of Committee on Friday, I referred to the fact that we would continue Committee on the Bill next Friday, 31 January, at 10 am. It is at col. 957 of Hansard. I expressed my expectation that Committee stage would finish on that day, this Friday, and I believe it was a realistic assumption given the rate of progress of business last week. It is still my reasonable assumption that Committee will conclude this Friday, and it is at that stage that matters to do with other stages will be considered. That is the time to do it, not now.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I find that easy to accept, but all I am asking is for the noble Baroness to confirm that she will advise the House to abide by the minimum intervals set out in the Companion. In the end, it is a yes or no question.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, this is a self-regulating House. The Companion has rules that set out the process in different circumstances. It is a matter that is considered at the end of Committee. That is not far away. I urge a little patience. I know that the House may soon become impatient because we have serious matters to address in the Children and Families Bill; I know that many noble Lords have attended the House for that.
	I am not in a position to go further than I would in any other case. This is not a time for consideration of how the Bill will proceed after Committee has been concluded. It has not yet been concluded; my expectation is that it will on Friday.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I would not intervene on this were it not for the fact that the government Chief Whip has been kind enough to quote me in relation to the Bill both at Second Reading, when she said that she was following my previous judgment about timings on Second Readings of Bills, and, as I have since discovered, although I did not have the pleasure of coming along to the House on Friday, in Committee, when she again cited previous Labour Chief Whips as the reason for her behaviour and making judgments in the way that she is.
	If it ever was the case that she was following our precedent, she has now clearly decided to depart from precedents. That is something that she must make a decision about in the following respect. It is crystal clear that the normal gap between Committee and Report is 14 days. Although this is the normal gap, it would be particularly so in the case of a Bill with considerable constitutional implications. It seems that even if Committee were completed this Friday—when I, sadly, have to report to the House that I am again unable to attend, which is why I make no apologies for making this point now—14 days could not mean that the Committee stage was considered the following Friday, or on the two Fridays after that because they are in the Recess. The earliest I can see that it could be, in keeping with the normal conventions of this House, would be 28 February. If I have made my calculations incorrectly, given that they are precisely the calculations I would have made had I been in the Chief Whip’s position now, perhaps she will be good enough to correct me.
	As the Chief Whip keeps telling the House that she is acting precisely in accordance with precedent and previous procedure, could she please put in the Library of the House a copy of the precedents for a Private Member’s Bill, introduced in mid-January, being given two successive Fridays that are wholly devoted to the Committee stage of the Bill—Fridays which went on in both cases beyond 3 pm, again in contravention of the normal procedures of this House? We will all be interested to read all the precedents for that. Perhaps it will be an extensive list; I just do not know.
	The noble Baroness is speaking from the Dispatch Box as the Government’s Chief Whip. My contention about the Bill is that it is not in any sense a Bill with any obvious precedent. Could she then please reassure the House that she is speaking from that Front Bench and giving her advice as the government Chief Whip with responsibility to the whole House? She is an active Conservative Party politician, which I respect and admire. I am an active Labour Party politician and have been all my life, but parts of her responsibility are to the whole House. Those include respecting the minimal interval.
	Again, if the noble Baroness is speaking on behalf of the Government, it means that she has the full and wholehearted consent of her deputy, to whom she kindly referred in reminding the House that he would normally stand in for her on a day such as this Wednesday. Perhaps she or the Deputy Chief Whip can confirm that she is speaking on his behalf as well as hers when she has been unable to give an assurance to the House, as she has been unable to give, that she will respect the full 14-day minimum interval between the two stages of the Bill.
	As I see it, she is speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Grocott: I need to say this if the House does not mind. Your Lordships will be able to find that I am frequently prayed in aid. It seems now that I am not being prayed in aid and I wish to establish the distinction. The Chief Whip can possibly do two things. First, can we please have all the precedents in the Library of the House and, secondly, can she confirm now to the House that she is speaking on behalf of the Government, with the full assent of the government Deputy Chief Whip?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my answer remains straightforward because I like to be a straightforward kind of person. I am giving the answer that any government Chief Whip would give at this stage. Matters of further stages are not considered until the end of Committee, which should conclude on Friday. I believe that that is a reasonable expectation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will give an undertaking that it is his expectation as well. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, refers to my praying him in aid. I do so with genuine respect, because I respect him as a government Chief Whip. I particularly recall that when he was government Chief Whip, he frequently called in the other Chief Whips, the Convener and Members of the Cross Benches, to ensure that his guidance that at least three groups an hour should be considered in Committee was maintained.
	I give a straightforward answer. Nothing further should be said by a government Chief Whip at this stage because it would be pre-empting any decision that may be made and making assumptions about Friday that it would be wrong to make. My expectation is that Committee will finish and I think the House has wearied of going around the same route. Again, there is only one answer, to which I will adhere because it is the right answer.

Lord Richard: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness what I hope is a fairly simple question. The Companion is quite clear in what it says. If it is for the convenience of the House, the intervals that are set out in the Companioncan clearly be varied. One accepts that. It happens quite often with government Bills. You get a Motion down on the Order Paper to say that the intervals should be compressed.
	Does the noble Baroness accept that in relation to this Bill, in order for the intervals to be compressed, there will have to be a Motion of this House, which will have to be passed?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, matters of procedure with regard to usual intervals are a matter to be discussed once one completes Committee. The Companionis absolutely clear. I can certainly see that the Clerk of the Parliaments is able to give firm advice, which may not be that which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, wishes to hear. I have given the only answer any government Chief Whip should and can give at this time. That is where it rests.

Water Bill
	 — 
	Committed to Committee

Moved by Lord De Mauley
	That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
	Motion agreed.

Water Bill
	 — 
	Order of Consideration Motion

Moved by Lord De Mauley
	That it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 2 to 4, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 5, Schedule 5, Clauses 6 to 37, Schedule 6, Clauses 38 to 44, Schedule 7, Clauses 45 to 48, Schedule 8, Clauses 49 to 74, Schedule 9, Clause 75, Schedule 10, Clauses 76 and 77, Schedule 11, Clauses 78 to 80, Schedule 12, Clause 81.
	Motion agreed.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2014
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	That the draft order laid before the House on 16 December 2013 be approved.
	Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.
	Motion agreed.

Children and Families Bill
	 — 
	Report (5th Day)

Amendment 57B
	 Moved by Earl Howe
	57B: Before Clause 80, insert the following new Clause—
	“Regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products
	(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (6) or (8) if the Secretary of State considers that the regulations may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people under the age of 18.
	(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the Secretary of State, in making regulations under subsection (6) or (8), from considering whether the regulations may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people aged 18 or over.
	(3) The Secretary of State may treat regulations under subsection (6) or (8) as capable of contributing to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people under the age of 18 if the Secretary of State considers that—
	(a) at least some of the provisions of the regulations are capable of having that effect, or
	(b) the regulations are capable of having that effect when taken together with other regulations that were previously made under subsection (6) or (8) and are in force.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (6) or (8) are to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) as capable of contributing to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, people’s health or welfare if (for example) they may contribute to any of the following—
	(a) discouraging people from starting to use tobacco products;
	(b) encouraging people to give up using tobacco products;
	(c) helping people who have given up, or are trying to give up, using tobacco products not to start using them again;
	(d) reducing the appeal or attractiveness of tobacco products;
	(e) reducing the potential for elements of the packaging of tobacco products other than health warnings to detract from the effectiveness of those warnings;
	(f) reducing opportunities for the packaging of tobacco products to mislead consumers about the effects of using them;
	(g) reducing opportunities for the packaging of tobacco products to create false perceptions about the nature of such products;
	(h) having an effect on attitudes, beliefs, intentions and behaviours relating to the reduction in use of tobacco products.
	(5) Regulations under subsection (6) or (8) are to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as capable of contributing to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people under the age of 18 if—
	(a) they may contribute to reducing activities by such people which risk harming their health or welfare after they reach the age of 18, or
	(b) they may benefit such people by reducing the use of tobacco products among people aged 18 or over.
	(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging of tobacco products.
	(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may in particular impose prohibitions, requirements or limitations relating to—
	(a) the markings on the retail packaging of tobacco products (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos);
	(b) the appearance of such packaging;
	(c) the materials used for such packaging;
	(d) the texture of such packaging;
	(e) the size of such packaging;
	(f) the shape of such packaging;
	(g) the means by which such packaging is opened;
	(h) any other features of the retail packaging of tobacco products which could be used to distinguish between different brands of tobacco product;
	(i) the number of individual tobacco products contained in an individual packet;
	(j) the quantity of a tobacco product contained in an individual packet.
	(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision imposing prohibitions, requirements or limitations relating to—
	(a) the markings on tobacco products (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos);
	(b) the appearance of such products;
	(c) the size of such products;
	(d) the shape of such products;
	(e) the flavour of such products;
	(f) any other features of tobacco products which could be used to distinguish between different brands of tobacco product.
	(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) create offences which may be committed by persons who produce or supply tobacco products the retail packaging of which breaches prohibitions, requirements or limitations imposed by regulations under subsection (6);
	(b) create offences which may be committed by persons who produce or supply tobacco products which breach prohibitions, requirements or limitations imposed by regulations under subsection (8);
	(c) provide for exceptions and defences to such offences;
	(d) make provision about the liability of others to be convicted of such offences if committed by a body corporate or a Scottish partnership.
	(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that regulations under subsection (6) or (8) are to be treated for the purposes specified in regulations under this subsection as safety regulations within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
	(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any provision made by or under an enactment (whenever passed or made) in connection with provision made by regulations under any of subsections (6), (8), (9) or (10).
	(12) The Secretary of State must—
	(a) obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under any of subsections (6), (8), (9) or (10) containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament) be within the legislative competence of that Parliament;
	(b) obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before making regulations under any of those subsections containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the National Assembly for Wales) be within the legislative competence of that Assembly;
	(c) obtain the consent of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland before making regulations under any of those subsections containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly) be within the legislative competence of that Assembly.
	(13) For the purposes of this section a person produces a tobacco product if, in the course of a business and with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, the person—
	(a) manufactures the product,
	(b) puts a name, trademark or other distinguishing mark on it by which the person is held out to be its manufacturer or originator, or
	(c) imports it into the United Kingdom.
	(14) For the purposes of this section a person supplies a tobacco product if in the course of a business the person—
	(a) supplies the product,
	(b) offers or agrees to supply it, or
	(c) exposes or possesses it for supply.
	(15) In this section—
	“enactment” includes—
	(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
	(b) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, or
	(c) Northern Ireland legislation;
	“external packaging”, “internal packaging” and “wrapper” have the meanings given by regulations under subsection (6);
	“packaging”, in relation to a tobacco product, means—
	(a) the external packaging of that product,
	(b) any internal packaging of that product,
	(c) any wrapper of that product, or
	(d) any other material attached to or included with that product or anything within paragraphs (a) to (c);
	“retail packaging”, in relation to a tobacco product, means the packaging in which it is, or is intended to be, presented for retail sale;
	“retail sale” means sale otherwise than to a person who is acting in the course of a business which is part of the tobacco trade;
	“tobacco product” means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed;
	“travel retail sector” means retail outlets in the United Kingdom at which tobacco products may be purchased only by people travelling on journeys to destinations outside the United Kingdom.”

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very pleased to have tabled government amendments that introduce regulation-making powers to enable the Government to bring in standardised tobacco packaging, if such a decision is made.
	I would like to acknowledge the support and positive responses that we have had to the Government’s action on tobacco and its packaging. We have seen support in both your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I have also had discussions with a number of noble Lords. I was pleased as well to see the welcoming comments from the public health community. I wrote to all noble Lords on 17 December explaining the key elements of this new clause. I will summarise the main provisions.
	Amendment 57B will provide the Secretary of State for Health with the power to make regulations to standardise packaging of tobacco products, should such a decision be taken by the Government. The regulation-making powers would enable Ministers to regulate internal and external packaging and any other associated materials included with a tobacco product.
	This would include, for example, not just the outside and the inside of a cigarette pack but also the cellophane or other outer wrapper of a pack.
	Ministers may also specify requirements for the products themselves, for example to regulate the appearance of, or branding on, individual cigarettes. The powers will extend to other forms of tobacco, such as hand-rolling tobacco. If standardised packaging is brought into place, we will think carefully about the type of tobacco to which the requirements should apply.
	The amendment is clear that before deciding whether to introduce regulations, Ministers must consider that regulations may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to those under 18 or promote their health or welfare. This includes harms that do not appear until later in life because, as we know, the harm to the health of a smoker may not be immediate but may manifest after several years of addiction. Ministers may also consider whether regulations may contribute to reducing the risk of harm to those aged 18 or over, so we could also take into account whether standardised tobacco packaging might help adults who want to quit.
	The amendment sets out the elements of the tobacco packaging that could be regulated—for example, the use of colour, branding or logos, the materials used and the texture, size and shape of the packaging. It also sets out the aspects of the tobacco product itself that could be regulated. The Government would not necessarily use all these powers, and if we proceed we will need to decide which aspects to include in any regulations. However, it is prudent to take a comprehensive approach now so that we are prepared for possible future developments and do not inadvertently create loopholes that could be exploited.
	The requirements would apply only to the retail packaging of tobacco products, which means the packaging that will or is intended to be used when the product is sold to the public. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers would still be able to use branding such as logos and colours on packaging, provided that they were used only within the tobacco trade—for example, on boxes used for stock management in a warehouse that were not seen by the public.
	These provisions will apply on a UK-wide basis, provided that legislative consent Motions are passed by the Parliament or Assemblies of the devolved Administrations. The Governments in Wales and Scotland have already obtained the necessary Motions, and Ministers in Northern Ireland are progressing this.
	The Government have also tabled two technical amendments, one making the regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedures and the other extending the provisions to the whole of the United Kingdom. If regulations are made, they will be enforced by local authority trading standards as safety regulations under the Consumer Protection Act. In reviewing the detail of the amendment, we have identified a small gap that we wish to address. As it is currently drafted, Ministers would not be able to take enforcement action if none was taken by a local authority. As a precaution, and in line with other tobacco control legislation, we think it
	sensible for Ministers to be able to do this and so intend to make a technical amendment to the new clause at Third Reading to allow for this.
	I wrote to noble Lords on 27 January about the Government’s intention to table amendments at Third Reading on the proxy purchasing of tobacco and the sale of nicotine products, primarily e-cigarettes, to children. I hope that both measures will be welcomed by your Lordships. I recognise that these amendments come at a late stage in the Bill’s passage, and I apologise for this. I want to be able to give noble Lords as much information as possible, so have invited all Peers to a meeting to discuss the amendments on 3 February and would be happy to meet on an individual basis as well, so that there is time to consider them before the debate at Third Reading.
	I shall summarise these amendments. We intend to create a new offence of the proxy purchase of tobacco, which is buying tobacco on behalf of someone underage. Nicotine is highly addictive and it is wrong in principle for adults to be buying cigarettes on behalf of children. We need to close common routes of supply to children. We know that proxy purchasing is a common problem and we need to take clear action to tackle it. There was considerable support for tackling proxy purchasing when it was debated in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We have also listened carefully to the views of retailers and their representative organisations on this issue.
	In addition, we have decided to table an amendment to enable us to make regulations to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to people aged under 18. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine, a highly addictive substance, albeit in a safer way than smoked tobacco. We know that some young people in England are using these products and there is nothing stopping their sale to people under 18. Some in the public health community are very concerned that e-cigarettes could act as a gateway into smoking tobacco, and that their use and promotion can undermine our efforts to reshape the social norms around tobacco use. The revised European tobacco products directive, which achieved political agreement in December last year, covers e-cigarettes but does not include an age of sale restriction. We therefore want to do this domestically through the Bill.
	The amendments will apply to England but we are in discussions with the Welsh Government regarding the possibility of extending the provisions to Wales, subject to the necessary legislative consent Motion being secured.
	I hope your Lordships will welcome these additional measures and understand why we are using the opportunity of this Bill to take these additional steps to try to protect young people from developing a lifelong addiction to smoking, with the major consequences this will bring to their health. Tobacco use is a leading preventable cause of death, accounting for nearly 80,000 deaths per year in England alone. Almost two-thirds of smokers take up smoking regularly before they are 18. We must take action to prevent young people taking up smoking in the first place.
	The Government have tabled this new clause on tobacco packaging so that we can act without delay if it is decided to introduce standardised tobacco packaging. Health Ministers have commissioned Sir Cyril Chantler to carry out an independent review of the evidence on whether the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging is likely to have an effect on public health, in particular for young people. The review will report by March 2014.
	The decision about whether to go ahead and introduce standardised packaging clearly and correctly rests with the Government. We will need to consider Sir Cyril’s report about the impact on public health alongside the wider issues raised by this policy. I will not pre-empt the outcome of the review, nor indeed of the decision-making process, but I can confirm that the Government will introduce standard tobacco packaging if, following the review, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed. I beg to move.
	Amendment 57BA (to Amendment 57B)
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	57BA: Before Clause 80, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 61 and 57BB. I very much welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s change of heart as far as standardised packaging is concerned, and I certainly welcome the appointment of Sir Cyril Chantler to review the evidence. Sir Cyril is known to many of your Lordships and has made a significant contribution to the NHS. We can have complete confidence in his work.
	My two amendments are designed to press the noble Earl on the comments he made in his final remarks and to encourage him to give the House an absolute assurance that should Sir Cyril Chantler conclude that the evidence is clear that standardised packaging is effective in reducing the risk of harm to children, the Government will speedily move to lay the regulations specified in his Amendment 57B. The noble Earl will know that at the moment line 3 of his amendment merely says,
	“The Secretary of State may make regulations”.
	I would have preferred to see the word “must”. To an extent, the noble Earl has already explained why it is to be “may”, but are there any circumstances where, on the assumption that Sir Cyril has concluded positively, the Government would not proceed to legislate?
	Amendment 57BB concerns the proposal that it be an offence for any person who drives a vehicle to fail to prevent smoking in the vehicle where a child or children are present. I do this on the basis that the past 15 years have seen an impressive reduction in the amount of smoking in this country. Indeed, since the previous Government’s 1998 Smoking Kills action plan, smoking rates among children, who are, of course, the focus of this Bill, have fallen by more than half following a period of little progress lasting 20 years. I have little doubt that the ban on advertising was pivotal, but the fall was also due to a series of other concerned measures which included an increase in the age of sale, picture warnings on packs and an above-inflation increase in tobacco duty to reduce affordability.
	I believe that we should continue the momentum and protect future generations from the dangers of smoking. That is why I welcome the Government’s agreement to legislate on standardised packages and the proposals that the Minister has outlined today in relation to proxy purchasing and the restriction of the sale of e-cigarettes to under 18 year-olds. However, the Government could do more by accepting my amendments and support the principle of a ban on the use of cigarettes when children are present in cars.
	Children’s lungs are smaller and they have faster breathing rates, which makes them particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke, especially within the close confines of a car. Members of the public are protected by smoke-free legislation when in public transport and work vehicles. However, large numbers of children remain exposed to high concentrations of second-hand smoke when confined in family cars. Indeed, around one child in five reports being regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in cars, with catastrophic health consequences. Figures released by the British Lung Foundation show that around 185,000 children between the ages of 11 and 15 in England are exposed to potentially toxic concentrations of second-hand smoke in their family car every day or on most days.
	We know that children exposed to second-hand smoke have a raised risk of lower respiratory infections, wheeze, asthma, middle ear infections and meningitis. Every year, exposure to second-hand smoke leads to an estimated 165,000 additional cases of these conditions among children. Many of those cases are serious, leading to an estimated 8,500 hospital admissions.
	I was very surprised by research identified by the British Lung Foundation, which shows that a single cigarette smoked in a moving car with the window half open exposes a child in the centre of the back seat to around two-thirds as much second-hand smoke as in an average smoke-filled pub of days gone by. Levels increase to 11 times those of a smoky pub when the cigarette is smoked in a stationary car with the windows closed.
	Some noble Lords will argue—as I heard the FOREST spokesman arguing this morning—that a car is a private space and that we should not legislate for what happens in such a space. However, there are more important principles than that, one of which is the need for child protection. Unlike most adults, children lack the freedom to decide when and how to travel, and they lack the authority most adults have to ask people not to smoke in their company. In those circumstances it is right for Parliament to step in to protect children.
	I know that the Government argue that the most effective way to reduce smoking in cars carrying children is not through legislation. In his letter to us the noble Earl talked of two successful campaigns aimed at encouraging people to change their behaviour, and said that the evaluations are encouraging. From what I see—and they do not appear to be very robust evaluations—I am not aware that the scientific evidence of behavioural change has been published. Can he give an assurance that the evaluations spanned several months and not just immediately after the campaign? Can he also confirm that they took into account what
	was reported by children and not just adults? There is sometimes a discrepancy between what adults say they do and their behaviour as reported by children. Can he also confirm that the research includes actual measurement of behavioural change? I do not believe that marketing measures such as website visits effectively demonstrate behaviour change. Can the noble Earl also say why, if the Government are so keen on evaluation, Ministers forced NICE to abandon a project to give public health guidance for commissioners and providers on the development and implementation of policies on smoke-free homes, private cars and other vehicles?
	The noble Earl will argue that this is best done through education. I understand that argument and I certainly accept that education programmes can achieve much. However, my contention is that we are now close to—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have listened to the noble Lord very carefully and I cannot understand—perhaps he can explain it to me—why on earth he has joined the question of plain packaging with smoking in cars. They are two completely different issues. Is it expected that those of us who are concerned with both amendments now have to speak in one debate rather than two, on two particularly difficult and important matters?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a number of amendments have been grouped together. Some deal with standardised packaging, others with the issue of smoking in cars. My answer to the noble Lord is that we will deal with both issues in one debate. The House always has to trade off having separate debates on individual amendments or pulling them together. I, for one, think it is better that we have a wider debate; but of course the noble Lord is entitled to speak on both issues. I hope that he will do so because he always has interesting insights—although I do not always agree with him on this particular one.
	In finishing, I want to come back—and anticipating the noble Earl’s response—to the issues around awareness campaigns. As I said, of course they can achieve much, but sometimes legislation also needs to be brought into the picture.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: The noble Lord said earlier in his speech that the principle of not legislating into private space and private family activity was one that should be breached on certain occasions. Could he explain why he is stopping at cars and not at living rooms in small flats, for example?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, they are two different issues. I certainly do not propose that we legislate in relation to people’s homes. The differences lie, first, in the scale of the health issue. As I have already indicated, the amount of second-hand smoke that a young person is likely to inhale in a car generally will be very much higher than in a person’s home. Secondly, by and large there are usually rooms in a person’s home that are not used for smoking, so there is more of an element of choice. I accept that this is a continuum, but I assure the noble Lord that it is not
	my intention to propose a ban on smoking in people’s homes. There are specific circumstances that make the banning of smoking in cars while children are present a particular health issue.

Lord Cormack: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Surely, my noble friend Lord Forsyth highlighted a very important point. He talked about small flats; there are small flats where there may be several children and only one living room. What is the logic of the noble Lord’s argument in that case? Personally, I do not think we should invade private space; that is my position and I may seek to defend it later. There is no logical difference between a single child in a car and four children in the living room of a small flat.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not accept that. Clearly, in relation to a child travelling in a car we are going to debate where the balance lies: whether a car should be regarded as a private entity in which the state ought not to intervene, or whether noble Lords consider that a child’s health becomes the paramount concern.
	A private car is rather different from a home; the health damage to a young person inhaling smoke in a car generally will be much greater than in a person’s home. I do not want to repeat the point that I have already made to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, although I may be tempting him to intervene again. However, within a home there are likely to be opportunities for young people to avoid the smoke-filled parts of that home.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I do not want to prolong the noble Lord’s speech; I am not making a debating point, but am genuinely interested in his logic. A child in a car—which I accept is a very confined space—will probably be in a car for a short journey. If children are in a living room, they are there all evening. Perhaps I should declare an interest; my late mother used to smoke 60 cigarettes a day. That is one of the reasons why I would never touch a cigarette. Surely, if a child is in a small living room in which continuous smoking is going on, that seems to me, without any evidence, to be as great a health hazard as being in a car. I am not advocating invading private space, but where is the evidence that supports what the noble Lord is saying—namely, that it is a much worse hazard being in a car, probably on a short journey, than being in a living room where smoking goes on all day?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have evidence on the length of the average car journey, though clearly short and long distances may be travelled during which smoking may take place. I suspect that we can argue that until the cows come home. However, I come back to the core argument that in a confined space, such as a car, a child is likely to be more damaged through inhaling second-hand smoke than they are in a person’s home. That is the reason for making a distinction between legislation affecting an individual vehicle and legislation affecting a person’s home.

Lord Scott of Foscote: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Does “private vehicle” in the amendment include a motor boat? One drives a motor boat.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I do not think that that is covered in my amendment—although, of course, it is open to the noble and learned Lord to propose an amendment to increase the scope of the measure. I would give such an amendment all due consideration.
	I refer noble Lords to an inquiry into smoking in private vehicles by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, carried out in 2011, which concluded that the evidence from smoke-free public places was that legislation would be necessary to reduce exposure to cigarette smoke in cars. That is the basic case I am making. At this stage, I am asking noble Lords to support the principle of a ban. If my amendment were accepted, I would be very happy to work on a cross-party basis to consult on the type of offence that should be put in place. I have not gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, and his colleagues in terms of specifying the offence because I think that needs further consideration and discussion.
	We would not be alone in legislating to protect children from the damage of smoking in cars. Seven other countries already do so, including four US states, 10 of the 13 Canadian provinces and all but one jurisdiction in Australia. As far as the public are concerned, a YouGov poll in 2011 found that 78% of adults in Great Britain agree that smoking should be banned in cars carrying children younger than 18 years of age. Just as significantly, perhaps, a British Lung Foundation survey in 2011 found that 86% of children want action to be taken to protect them from cigarette smoke in cars. I think that we should listen to the voice of children in this respect. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment that I shall propose later.
	In concluding, I should have pointed out to noble Lords my health interests in the register, including being chairman of a foundation trust, a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections and president of GS1.

Lord Ribeiro: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is compelling but fails to acknowledge the impact of second-hand smoke on children in confined spaces or in the home, as we heard in an earlier debate. For this to happen, the public, particularly parents, have to be educated about the harm that second-hand smoke can do to young children’s lungs. The noble Lord identified some of those problems. That is why I believe that education and behavioural change are important.
	As a doctor, I recognise the damage that second-hand smoke can cause, and in particular the long-lasting effect it can have on the lungs of young children. Just this Sunday, I was present at the birth of my first grandson out of six grandchildren.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Ribeiro: I greeted that event with jubilation. I would not want that grandson to go through life having his young lungs damaged by cigarette smoke. I am concerned about that. Cigarette smoke contains a cocktail of carcinogens: arsenic, cadmium, formaldehyde, benzene and in particular the fine particulate matter that comes out of cigarettes when they are smoked. This can cause long-term damage and illnesses.
	My Amendment 62, which mimics the Private Member’s Bill that I took through this House in 2012, serves to make parents and the public aware of the risks and to provide educational programmes to rehabilitate them through smoke-free driving awareness courses. I believe strongly in education and behavioural change, rather than the imposition of punitive measures. It is about providing incentives to change behaviour, not dissimilar from the police driving course which noble Lords may have been offered if they have ever been unfortunate enough to have been caught speeding. There may be some in this Chamber who can endorse the benefits of that.
	In that sense, my amendment is exploratory, seeking to obtain answers from the Government on two specific issues. The first is education to change behaviour, as I explained. Here, I applaud the Government for their successful advertising campaign launched last year, with its graphic films of children assaulted by smoke in the back of cars while parents in the front are oblivious to the damage being done behind them, probably because the driver has a window open and therefore assumes that all the smoke is going outside. I should like assurances from my noble friend that the Government will repeat that successful campaign and undertake an extensive evaluation of its effects. We must know that behavioural change is happening.
	I am sure that the Government have taken note of the Welsh Government’s Fresh Start Wales campaign. I made reference to this at Second Reading and asked whether the Government would again consider mirroring what the Welsh Government were doing. That Government are due to report in the spring on the result of their campaign, following which they reserve the right to introduce legislation if no improvement in behaviour is apparent.
	My second question to the Government relates to a national consultation, which should involve the public, the profession and the retailers, to decide whether legislation or non-legislative measures are required to protect children from smoking in confined spaces. I am pleased that my noble friend has asked Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review of the public health evidence on standardised tobacco packaging and its effects on public health. Might he perhaps also consider asking Sir Cyril, at the conclusion of this review in March, to undertake a similar review of the effects of second-hand smoke on children travelling in cars? There is plenty of evidence out there but what is now needed is the clinical evidence that shows that smoke causes long-term damage. We know that the long-term sequelae from smoking in adults are quite severe. If we can demonstrate that they start at a very early age, that will be very good evidence for taking action now rather than later.
	My amendment provides the Government with measures to change behaviour. They may have started with good intentions—and I am sure that they have. Standardised tobacco packaging will reduce the risk of smoking and its damaging effects on children. I hope that the Government will take the view that legislation, although difficult, may need to be considered. However, for legislation to work, I understand that it must be proportionate and enforceable. In this respect, my amendment is probably defective, as it will be difficult to police and to enforce, much in the same way, I suppose, as is the case with the mobile phone offence, which is legislated for but is difficult to police.
	I hope that my noble friend will provide me with some of the concessions that I seek. I do not think that they are small ones but they will help to ensure that over the next year, and certainly over the next three months when we hear the results of the Welsh review and Sir Cyril Chantler’s review—and it is to be hoped that he will extend that further—we will have more information on which to make a decision as to whether we should introduce legislation or non-legislative measures.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 60 and 62. I will first address Amendment 60 on standardised packaging and move on to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, has spoken so eloquently. I hope to avoid covering the ground that has already been covered. In terms of standardised packaging, those of us who contributed in Committee to a very powerful and widely supported debate across the House are grateful to the Government for having done exactly what they said they would; namely, take the proposal away and look at it. They have returned with an elegant amendment. Before finally legislating, it seems wise to have an independent review by Sir Cyril Chantler.
	This is definitely a public health and a child protection measure. I should like to address that briefly but not repeat what was said previously. The Minister has already said how many children start smoking before the age of 18. That figure is particularly high in looked-after children, where about one-third report that they are current smokers. However, when looking at children in residential care, the figure rises to more than two-thirds. There is a real problem with very vulnerable children.
	In 1999, the tobacco industry’s magazine, World Tobacco, said that,
	“if your brand can no longer shout from billboards … it can at least court smokers from wherever it is placed by those already wedded to it”.
	The problem is that we know that tobacco is a highly addictive substance, and that the products of tobacco damage health and do not have any positive benefit. Recently, a study published in the European Journal of Public Health has shown that,
	“the removal of brand imagery from tobacco packaging reduces the appeal of tobacco products, including perceptions of brand attractiveness and smooth taste and perceptions of lower tar or lower health risk”.
	Those perceptions are an illusion. The study was in the UK, and I am sure that it will be considered in the evidence review and that Sir Cyril will be an independent reviewer in every sense.
	It is worrying that it has taken us so long to get to this point. Like other noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment, I sincerely believe that the day will come when we will see standardised packaging. That day is not far off, because research study after research study reports are reinforcing that standardised packaging is making cigarette packs less attractive to young people.
	I have had discussions with Her Majesty’s Customs as regards illicit trade. It pointed out that it is not that difficult to detect counterfeit standardised packaging, just as it is not difficult to detect other counterfeit packaging. Indeed, the cover marks, number codes and security marks are the clue, rather than the bald, external appearance of the pack. It also is well aware that tobacco firms have been producing and exporting cigarettes far in excess of any known demand in a stated target market abroad, knowing that this excess production will be smuggled back into the UK. The tobacco companies appear to have been complicit with what has been termed the illicit trade. It seems logical that this move and the government amendment are because of child protection issues and the importance of preventing children from starting to smoke.
	On tobacco and smoking in cars, the British Lung Foundation study, which was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, included another set of figures which I hope the House will consider. One has to remember that the children responding in the study were of an age at which they could answer competently. When asked about being a passenger in a car, 31% said that they had asked someone to stop smoking but 34% said that they had not dared to ask because they were too frightened or too embarrassed. The child in the back seat, belted in, is effectively imprisoned in the vehicle for their own safety while travelling. They are stuck there. They have no control over what the adults do, and it is worth remembering that they do not feel able to do anything about it either. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if they are in a house, they can move to another room or another area and the volume of space is much greater than in a car.

Lord Cormack: Would this amendment apply to open-topped cars such as sports cars where children would presumably not be at risk?

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: It is worth pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, has already indicated that he will not press his amendment, which is quite specific, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, simply addresses the ability to bring forward regulation but does not specify what those regulations should be. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that his question is an important one for us to have at a later stage, in the event that the House decides to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
	My last point relates to my home country of Wales, where I am delighted that the problem of tobacco consumption has been taken seriously. The results of the Welsh campaign will be published fairly soon. But
	it is with regret that I have to note that at the end of the first year of the campaign, 22% of smokers still pointed out that smoking was allowed in their car at any time. There is a perception that if it is allowed it is okay. I am concerned over the results that will come forward from the education campaign, although I fully support the campaign itself.
	I remind the House that we had a parallel debate over seat belts in cars. Yet the seat-belt wearing rate increased in the UK from 25% before legislation to 91% after legislation. That was introduced alongside awareness campaigns. We cannot have legislation without a large education and awareness-raising campaign. The efficacy relates to the education and awareness-raising campaign rather than to any kind of punitive measures that go alongside it.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I added my name to Amendments 57BB, 60 and 62 and will speak briefly to those, but I start by congratulating the noble Earl on bringing forward his Amendment 57B and for overseeing a significant change in government policy on the subject of standard packaging. Like many of your Lordships, I was heartened when I heard the then Public Health Minister, Anna Soubry, around a year ago saying that the Government were minded to go down the standard packs route and then bitterly disappointed last summer when the plans were suddenly dropped. Various conspiracy theories were propounded at the time and I will not go into those now, but it looked as if the issue was dead, at least for the foreseeable future.
	At that point, it seemed sensible to look at whether there was any possibility of adding a standard packaging amendment to another Bill, which might not immediately present itself as the most appropriate, in order to be able to give the House the opportunity to debate the issue and come to a view on it. With the help of staff in the Public Bill Office—about whom I cannot speak highly enough, as their help was invaluable in framing our original amendment in Committee and the subsequent amendment that we tabled for today—we were able to bring the issue to the Committee and approach the issue in an entirely cross-party and non-party way. The amendment that we put together was signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and myself.
	Amendment 60 is an improved version of what we had in Committee, but the Government’s amendment today is a great improvement on that as well. I congratulate them on picking up a number of the points that were defective in ours and coming forward with one that, I think, is very effective. Tobacco control should not be a party-political matter; it should be the common concern of everyone who cares about the health and the well-being of the public. As we have heard from the Minister, smoking-related disease still kills more than 100,000 people across the UK and is by far the most common form of preventable death—it accounts for more premature deaths than the next six most common causes put together.
	As most smokers start as teenagers, the teenage market is the one which the tobacco companies are anxious to promote, which it is the responsibility of all
	of us to try to prevent. Two-thirds of existing smokers report that they started before their 18th birthday, and around two in five before they were 16. The younger the age at which they start, the greater the harm is likely to be, because the early uptake of the habit is associated with subsequent heavier smoking—of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, experienced with his mother and her 60-a-day habit—high levels of dependency, a lower chance of quitting and a higher chance of death from smoking-related disease.
	For the tobacco industry to keep its market, it is necessary for it to recruit new smokers every year. That is because older smokers die or quit—or indeed lose their lives prematurely as a result of their habit. Since most smokers start when they are young, it follows that, for the industry, young people are the most important target group of potential new consumers.
	We know what the tobacco industry would do in this country to promote its products if the law and the authorities allowed. Indeed, we probably know more about the commercial strategies of the tobacco industry than about any other major industry in the world, in large part because so many previously confidential documents were made public as a result of the US master settlement agreement with the industry in 1998.
	Given the restrictive legislation around marketing and advertising tobacco in the UK, the industry is left with few options to promote its products. Of these, the most important is now packaging. Packs can be used to market and advertise, to create brand identities and to help present an image of smoking that may indeed seem “cool” to a curious teenager. There are many diversionary arguments advanced by the tobacco industry and the front groups it funds so lavishly about why we should not proceed with standardised packaging. So we hear tobacco industry claims that the UK is being flooded with illicit tobacco and that standard packs will make the problem worse. But the level of illicit trade has fallen sharply since it peaked back in 2000, and the security features on existing packs will also be present on standard ones. Both our amendment and the Government’s would allow the Secretary of State to specify packaging requirements that would enhance and not reduce product security, and make smuggling and counterfeiting more difficult.
	However, the tobacco industry’s real, core argument is quite simple. It is advancing the proposition that its claimed so-called “intellectual property rights” trump the requirements of public health—or to put it more sharply, that its right to design products designed to get children addicted is more important than the children’s right to be protected from that addiction and the health damage that it causes. I believe that the overwhelming majority of your Lordships, and indeed Members of the other place, reject the tobacco industry’s arguments and want to make cigarettes as unattractive to children and young people as possible. So, as I said at the beginning, I warmly welcome the Government’s amendment. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward and on his announcement regarding proxy purchasing of tobacco products by adults for young people, and the regulation of e-cigarettes, about which we shall hear more at Third Reading.
	I am not going to speak about smoking in cars because the speeches on that subject by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro—with whom I agree, and whom I congratulate on his perseverance in taking a Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House on this subject—and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have covered the main points. However, I strongly commend the points that my noble friend Lord Hunt made about the desirability of moving towards a smoke-free atmosphere in cars where children are trapped and subject to appalling levels of second-hand smoke.
	I am very happy indeed to support the government amendment. We shall not be pressing our own amendment on standard packaging, but I shall be supporting my noble friend.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendments 60 and 62. I will speak briefly to them and try not to repeat some of the arguments we have already heard. I will also say how much I welcome government Amendment 57B. In Grand Committee, the strength of feeling across your Lordships’ House on the issue of standardised packaging of cigarettes was crystal clear, and the Government are to be strongly applauded for responding with their own amendment, which is very well founded and very persuasive. I, too, look forward to Third Reading, when the Government will introduce additional measures around proxy purchasing and e-cigarettes.
	At the beginning of these debates, some noble Lords raised questions about the logic of including an amendment on the packaging of cigarettes in a Bill whose stated remit is children and families. To my mind, the relevance is unequivocal—this is the very nub of the issue, which is why we are discussing it today. Preventing the uptake of smoking among the young is primarily an issue of child protection. As we have already heard today, each year around 200,000 under-16s take up smoking. For some, it is the start of a lifetime of addiction which will result in debilitating health conditions and, for some in turn, premature mortality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, many of those children will come from particularly deprived backgrounds. We have already heard about children in care and I would draw your Lordships’ attention to teenage mothers, who, according to an ONS survey, are six times more likely than the average mother to smoke throughout their pregnancy, to the detriment of both their own and their baby’s health.
	Standardised packaging, bearing clear anti-smoking messages, is the first key step to reducing the attractiveness of this lethal habit to children and young people. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, we should be absolutely clear that tobacco packaging and branding is not innocuous. It is undoubtedly, at the moment, targeted at the young—the industry documents released in the USA about this were very telling indeed, although I do not intend to repeat the details of that. Equally critically, the weight of evidence is mounting that standardised packaging does work to reduce the incidence of smoking. I was very persuaded by the Department of Health’s systematic literature review, which found that, compared to current cigarette packs, standardised packs are less attractive to young people, improve the effectiveness of health warnings
	and reduce the mistaken belief that some brands are safer than others. I eagerly look forward to the outcome of the review by Sir Cyril Chantler, who will look at all of this in the round. I will be very surprised if he does not come out supporting the various literature reviews that we have already seen.
	Very recently, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I had the privilege of meeting with Nicola Roxon, the former Australian Minister for Health who was instrumental in the implementation of standardised packaging there. I was very impressed as she explained to us the impact that standardised packaging was having as part of—this is absolutely critical—a wider anti-smoking strategy in no longer portraying smoking as cool and glamorous or cigarettes as a “must have” accessory, but instead portraying a much less desirable, and far more truthful, image.
	It is revealing that hard data are already coming from Australia—something that I am sure Sir Cyril will want to look at. A study in Victoria, Australia, published in the British Medical Journal, concluded that when consuming cigarettes from the new packs, smokers are 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were of poorer quality, 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying and 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day. Why is that? Because standardised packs carry powerful health messages that expose the reality of smoking. Frankly, having seen some of the images, it would take a very strong stomach or tightly closed eyes to be unaffected by them.
	I will say a few words in support of Amendment 62 on smoking in cars, which my noble friend Lord Ribeiro has already covered very eloquently. For me the nub of the issue is that as a nation we have recognised the harm that passive smoking can do and we have made laudable strides in mitigating its effects, by banning smoking in public places, on public transport and in work vehicles. There is a glaring omission: every day children across England are exposed to dangerously high levels of smoke when travelling in the family car. According to the British Lung Foundation—this is a different statistic—more than 430,000 children every week will be exposed to it.
	In Grand Committee, in all the debates and earlier this afternoon it came up that whenever proposals of this sort are put forward some will argue that this is extending the reach of the nanny state: this is private space, where the Government should not get involved. But clearly there are overriding reasons for acting now to safeguard that most precious commodity, the health of our children. We hear lots of people, generally from the tobacco industry, talking about the rights of smokers, but who is speaking up for the rights of the child? Every parent can smoke if they want to, but surely every child should have the right to be in a safe environment, which includes when they are in a car.
	When I read through the statistics, the one that most brought it home to me was that to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has referred—that within the confines of a stationary car with a roof and the
	windows closed, a single cigarette can create concentrations of smoke 11 times greater than in the average smoky pub. How many parents would knowingly want to expose their child to such a toxic atmosphere with such adverse long-term effects on health? The answer of course is very few. Let us never forget that there is huge public support for this ban. A recent survey found that 80% of the public support it and so do 86% of children.
	In Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe raised concerns about enforcement, but it must be possible to find a way forward here. The police already have a number of duties with respect to private vehicles, including on seat belts, intoxication levels of the driver, mobile phones and the use of child-safety seats and restraints. Those are not always easy to enforce and we may not have got things quite right yet, but I do not see why that role, primarily undertaken by the police, cannot with careful thinking also be undertaken in relation to smoking in cars with children.
	We have a precedent. Seven out of eight states in Australia have adopted this legislation and found a way of enforcing it. We can learn something from them. I like to think that we can take this forward on a cross-party basis. I agree that it is too important to become a party-political football and it should be an issue that we can all agree on.
	This has been an interesting debate. Is it better to have legislation or a public-education campaign? The latter would probably be effective. My own view, backed up by the statistics on wearing seat belts given by my noble friend Lady Finlay, is that having the two together is the most effective. We are not talking either/or; it is a clear case of both/and. I hope that today we send out a message, loud and clear from this Chamber, that it is simply not acceptable to expose your children to second-hand smoke in the car.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. Before I start, I shall not miss this opportunity to chide both Front Benches. I have spoken about this in the past and tabled many amendments on different health Bills. The last time that I tried was with the Labour Government. The Minister taking the legislation through was not the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I did not succeed on that day in getting my amendment through. Obviously, the government Benches were not going to support me, but I did have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who is not in her place and who was the Front Bench health spokesman of the Liberal Democrats. I did not have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at the time—hence I did not succeed.
	However, I am delighted to congratulate the Government on having, in a step-wise fashion—and as a result of efforts made by many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—reached a place where they can bring forward an amendment to address the public health evidence that plain packaging will make a difference to the uptake of smoking of cigarettes, in particular by children. I am particularly delighted that the government amendment includes not just external packaging but internal packaging. I remember my
	days as a young medical student, when one would rush out and buy Sobranie Black Russians because the cigarettes were wrapped in nice black paper with gold tips. At the same time, we would also buy a packet of Sobranie Cocktails to impress the ladies we were taking to dances because they came in multicoloured wrappers—so packaging makes a difference, even to a young medical student.
	I am therefore delighted to see the Government’s amendment. I have no doubt whatever that Sir Cyril Chantler, whom I know well as a friend, will be absolutely meticulous in looking at the evidence. I am convinced by the evidence and I hope that he will be, too.
	Let me turn to the issue of smoking in cars when children are present. I have taken the trouble to look at all the evidence about second-hand smoke in confined spaces. I have looked at the public health evidence from the Surgeon General of the United States, from Australia, from New Zealand and from Great Britain—both epidemiological and observational studies. The findings are quite interesting: undoubtedly, second-hand smoking is harmful. It is harmful to children—more so because their metabolic rate is higher, so any injurious substances that they inhale are bound to have a greater effect. It is harmful also to adults, particularly older people who have respiratory conditions or cardiac disease. It is harmful also to pregnant mothers who do not smoke, among whom there is a higher rate of still-births and infant deaths because of the epigenetic effects of the inhalation of injurious substances during their pregnancy. It is worse if they smoke during their pregnancy, but even if they do not, the effect of second-hand smoke is harmful to them.
	There is further evidence, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, that some of the injurious substances in tobacco smoke persist on certain surfaces for a very long time. So this issue is not just about smoking when there are children in a car; it is also about making that car harmful to children because injurious substances persist. That also applies to any confined space. So the question is: what legislation will have the greatest public health effect? Will it be legislation that stops smoking in cars when children are present? Will it be legislation that bans smoking completely? Of course, it will be the latter, but that will not be possible—such legislation is too draconian. Could it be a good educational programme that teaches people that if you smoke in front of children, whether in a confined space or in an open space, or if children just see you smoking, that is wrong and harmful?
	I was accused by my wife of smoking 20 to 40 cigarettes a day. All young doctors smoked in those days; it was the thing to do. Not all doctors smoke these days. When I saw my daughter, who was 11 months old, watch me lighting a cigarette, it was the day that I stopped smoking. She might object to me giving her age, but she is past 40—just, and she is a cancer doctor, so she understands these things. I felt that her observing me lighting a cigarette would be as harmful to her as her taking up smoking. The issue that we should therefore debate is what would have the greatest public health gain, whether for children—more importantly for children—or for young adults, older people and pregnant mothers.
	The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, seeks more targeted education and some consultation to find the evidence. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to have on the statute that a regulation must be brought in. I was talking about regulations pertaining only to cars. The evidence that I have looked at would suggest that we should ban smoking in cars completely, because that way there would be no possibility of anybody smoking in cars and leaving injurious substances behind that may harm children. That may or may not be a better deal than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but my plea is, “Let us look at what would be the best public health gain”.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Howe on his amendment. I wholly support what he said about packaging and about appointing Sir Cyril Chantler. I have the good fortune of knowing Sir Cyril. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke a moment ago, I believe that he is a man of impeccable integrity and great knowledge and I am sure my noble friend could not have chosen anyone better. I do not want to dilate on that subject.
	I have smoked two cigarettes in my life. I was 15 years old; they were Woodbines and it was behind the bike shed. They were thoroughly disgusting—I have never smoked since and I never want to smoke. I am afraid I cannot say the same for my wife, although I think she has cut down a bit; she certainly does not smoke in my presence, either in the car or at home.
	It is beyond doubt that we can and should accept everything that has been said about the dangers of smoking by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend—my friend in every way—Lord Ribeiro. We should do everything possible to deter people from smoking. I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone in congratulating my noble friend Lord Ribeiro on the birth of his grandson. I would be entirely in favour of the parents of the grandson of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, being sent a note about the dangers of smoking. I would be entirely in favour of the parents of every newborn child being specifically warned about the dangers to children of passive smoking. I would be entirely in favour of increasing the taxes on cigarettes. I would be in favour of extra insurance premiums for people who smoke. I would not object to there being a column about smoking on car insurance forms, and, if you tick the smoking box, there being an extra premium that goes directly to the battle against smoking. I would be entirely in favour of all those things or permutations of them. There are many that we could all think of.
	However, when it comes to the question of smoking in motor vehicles, my noble friend Lord Ribeiro introduced his amendment skilfully, tactfully and undogmatically. I have no argument with that, but I believe that his essential premise is wrong. To advocate any law that is going to be exceptionally difficult to police and enforce, and moreover brings the state into the private space of individuals, is to be deplored.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, can I just ask the noble Lord about the whole of the child protection law as it stands at the moment, which is in
	every private space to protect children from neglect, emotional harm and, indeed, abuse within their own homes.
	I believe that this is actual harm. It is extraordinarily difficult to police every home, as we know from what happens to social workers and social services every time something occurs in a local authority because the policing has been so difficult. That does not stop us having legislation to ensure that in private place, the child is protected from harm. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just how harmful it is. Were it left to me, I would legislate in the private space of the home. Having been brought up in a two-bedroom house on a working class estate, I think that my lungs have suffered. I am just pointing out that we legislate for private space, because that point has been raised on a number of occasions.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, that was really a speech rather than an intervention. There is all the difference in the world between the physical or sexual exploitation of a child and smoking. Smoking is not an illegal activity. Some of us may wish that it were, but it is not. It would be wholly impractical, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, made plain in his remarks, for us to outlaw smoking. That is a road down which we cannot go. Therefore, to invade the private space of individuals who are committing a perfectly legal act seems to me a step too far. That is why we should look at other means. I have mentioned taxation and increased insurance premiums; there are many routes down which we could go to make it more and more difficult for adults to smoke in the presence of children.
	Most importantly, it is up to experienced people such as the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Ribeiro to ensure that there is a well informed education campaign so that no one is in any doubt that smoking is a harmful activity and that inhaling passive smoke is dangerous and injurious to health. I am with the noble Baroness and my noble friend on that all the way, but the invasion of personal space—prosecuting people for what is a legal activity—seems a step too far. That is why, while I welcome and applaud the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Howe—if there were a Division, although I am sure that there will not be, I would enthusiastically go into the Lobby to support him—I cannot support something that I believe is a step too far in the invasion of personal space, which would also be monumentally difficult to enforce. We have to bear in mind the responsibilities of the police, whose job it would be to stop the cars and ask the questions.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Does not the noble Lord accept that, although there may be difficulties of enforcement, the very fact of passing a law combined with the kind of educational programme that he supports is likely to have a positive effect?

Lord Cormack: No, frankly, I do not. I respect the noble Lord—he knows that—and we agree on many issues, but we will have to disagree on this one. I think
	it would make the job of the police even more difficult than it is at the moment and endanger what popularity they have with many law-abiding citizens. It is a burden that we should not place on them.
	I repeat: let us do everything we can to educate; let us do everything we can to deter; let us have the plain packaging; let us listen very carefully to what Sir Cyril says in his report; but let us not take the ultimate step that the noble Lord advocates.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I shall be brief. I congratulate the Government on having listened about packaging of tobacco. I also support the amendments to protect children from people smoking in vehicles. Apart from damaging children’s health, smoke gets in their eyes and is very unpleasant. There are also small babies and pregnant mothers whose unborn children need protecting. I hope that the noble Earl can give the House some assurance that there will be regulations that will protect these vulnerable babies and children. I would add that people with asthma, and all chest problems, should also be protected because this is really dangerous for their health.

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, I ask noble Lords to consider the following points as we debate these amendments. More than 800 children visit their doctors every day due to the serious effect of second-hand smoke exposure, according to research published by the Royal College of Physicians. The survey also highlights that 65% of parents who smoke admit to doing so in the car with their children and other people’s children present, and that 75% of smoking parents were shocked to hear that second-hand smoke affects the health of so many children. If they had not been asked that question they would not have been aware of this, so they really need to be educated.
	Asthma UK has stated quite clearly that second-hand smoke is a major trigger for asthma attacks, making the symptoms even worse. It believes that if we take action to reduce second-hand smoke, we will be a step closer to a world where asthma begins to be no longer a daily struggle, or where no one dies from that condition. The children’s charity Sparks—I declare an interest as one of its trustees—spends millions of pounds on research to eradicate asthma among children, a condition which is growing daily. Sparks dearly believes that if we take action to protect children from second-hand smoke, that will be helpful to children. So let us give careful consideration to what action we should take to protect children from the result of second-hand smoking and act robustly in the best interests of the child.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I very much support the aims behind Amendment 62, and indeed an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about doing something really firm to prevent smoking in cars when children are present. This amendment certainly seems a sensible and straightforward way to ensure that all children have a healthy start in life, without the harmful influence of tobacco smoke in their young and still developing bodies.
	We have heard that opponents of the proposed ban on smoking in cars have argued that legislation of activity in private vehicles would constitute an invasion of people’s private space. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, even said in Committee on this amendment that although smoke-free public spaces legislation has proven to be extremely successful in reducing people’s exposure to second-hand smoke,
	“it does not automatically follow from that that it is right to extend the scope of legislation to cover private cars”.—[ Official Report , 20/11/13; col. GC 412.]
	However, in the case of child protection, this may not be such a stretch of the imagination. My noble friend Lady Howarth absolutely spelt out that the issue of child protection is a perfect example of this distinction playing a secondary consideration to the well-being and health of the child. Children are protected by the law from abuse and neglect wherever they are.
	I have heard about the impact that tobacco smoke has on the health of children. We have all heard about it. Their bodies are still developing and they are much more likely to be affected by smoke-related illnesses than their adult counterparts. A Royal College of Physicians report estimated that smoking around children causes more than 20,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infection; 120,00 cases of middle-ear disease; at least 22,000 new cases of wheeze and asthma; 200 cases of bacterial meningitis; and 40 sudden infant deaths—one in five of all SIDs.
	We know that only a proportion of people continue to smoke around children, so the level of illness in children due to second-hand smoke is staggering. It would be difficult to impose such a law on the home—we have heard this already—but we can do something about children's exposure to smoke in cars. We also know that tobacco smoke pollution levels in vehicles can be 23 times greater than in a house. I am talking, of course, about a car with a roof on it. Moreover, when a child is strapped into the car, they do not have a choice about leaving the room—a choice possible, at least for some children, in their home—when adults are smoking.
	More needs to be done to protect children from avoidable harm, whether this harm takes place in private vehicles or in public spaces. Moreover, there is also a precedent for banning smoking in vehicles. Cars are already recognised as potentially dangerous spaces for second-hand smoke exposure due to their confined spaces. This is why smoking has already been banned in all vehicles used for the purpose of work in the UK since July 2007. It is surely astounding that we cannot do something effective to protect children as well. There are no restrictions on smoking in private vehicles with children present. I believe fully that this needs to change.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, the greater majority of people live in smoke-free homes, not because of the law, but because it is no longer acceptable to smoke in the home of a non-smoker. Equally, most smokers no longer allow smoking in their cars when children are present.
	It is absolutely correct to protect children from second-hand smoke, but it is wrong to think that it is children who are most at risk from its catastrophic
	consequences. While it is estimated that there are 1 million children with asthma, adults with asthma outnumber them by four to one—and I am one of them. While open windows in cars have been mentioned by a couple of noble Lords, I would have an asthma attack on the motorway with my windows closed if there was someone smoking a cigar at some time somewhere ahead. Also, the greatest risk from second-hand smoke is to those with a pre-existing heart condition.
	The objective of Amendment 57BB, therefore, must not be simply to protect children but rather to further change public attitudes and behaviour so that people no longer smoke in cars carrying any passenger. Just as the law focused on workplaces had a great effect on smoking at home, it is hoped that this amendment will reduce the harm caused to non-smokers of all ages.
	As it is the noble Earl’s birthday today, I hope he will accept this amendment.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I want to make it clear that I have no interest to declare on this Bill. I have never smoked and I have no investments in any tobacco company. However, it remains a fact that 20% of our nation smokes. That 20% expects someone at least to speak up for the implications for it of any legislation that we in Parliament propose.
	Perhaps surprisingly, the first dimension of the amendment that I draw to the House’s attention is a constitutional one. I think many noble Lords will know that in another place I was Chairman of Ways and Means, and there one had to be very careful about constitutional innovations—I shall put it like that. This amendment is a constitutional innovation. Leaving aside the detail about the standard packaging for a moment, the broad framework of the amendment defines what the regulation is to be and says that the Secretary of State, not Parliament down at the other end, may make those regulations. We need to be quite clear about this. The amendment goes on to say, in new subsection (12):
	“The Secretary of State must”—
	not “may”—
	“obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers … the consent of the Welsh Ministers”,
	and,
	“the consent of the Office of the First Minister … in Northern Ireland”.
	What it does not say is that the regulation needs to receive the consent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may be very comfortable with that in relation to standard packaging, but I wonder whether they would be equally comfortable if it directly involved other packaged goods industries. One has in mind the sugar industry, the alcohol industry and the fizzy drinks industry, and there must be myriad others that interest groups outside would lobby to have contained or indeed restricted. I just put that on the record because it is a novel dimension to our constitution that I would like to have studied in a little more detail rather than have it sneaked in, if I may put it that way, in this Bill.

The Countess of Mar: Does the noble Lord realise that if the Secretary of State makes regulations, they will have to be done by statutory instrument? Statutory instruments are either affirmative or negative. In the case of a negative instrument we can pray against it, and in the case of an affirmative one we can debate it. Both Houses will have the opportunity to consider them.

Lord Naseby: While it is true that there is an opportunity to debate a statutory instrument after the Statutory Instruments Committee has looked at it and decided that it wishes to do so, nevertheless—

The Countess of Mar: My Lords—

Lord Naseby: Let me just finish. Your Lordships know full well that there is absolutely no way that we may amend any statutory instrument; we either take it as it comes or we reject it. I am just pointing out that this is a change to the procedures of this House that we have had hereto. The noble Countess may disagree with me—it happens quite often in law that people disagree—but I have had advice. Perhaps she also had advice on her intervention. I leave that aspect; it is on the record now.
	I turn specifically to the amendment and its contents. There are three aspects of it that I draw to the House’s attention. First is the matter of intellectual property rights. Such rights are a key dimension to any industry, particularly in the packaged goods world, where I had the privilege to work for some 20 years. Those rights are something that most of those industries have had for centuries. They distinguish between one product and another from a competitor; importantly, they produce a quality assurance for those who buy the product; and they provide for the businesses to have valuable assets that they can produce innovations from and so create competition. Those are assets to those companies that should not lightly be cast aside. There may be particular reasons why some of them should be confined at certain times in certain circumstances, but personally I think that society needs to tread very carefully.
	In relation to this amendment, there is the legal situation. I am not a lawyer, but I have had a look and sought advice on the exact legal situation as matters stand at the moment. As I understand it, there are four constraints on Her Majesty’s Government. When my noble friend winds up, I hope he will be able to reassure me that all these issues have been dealt with. Otherwise, the Government will have to deal with them before this part of the Bill becomes law.
	The constraints are: first, Article 34 of TFEU covering the free movement of tobacco products; secondly, Article 13(1) of the tobacco products directive which affects the free movement of goods; thirdly, it would produce a disproportionate and unjustified interference with a company’s property rights, which are specifically protected in the UK by, surprisingly, the Human Rights Act 1998 and in the EU by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and would cut across the UK’s
	obligations made under international law, several World Trade Organisation agreements, particularly the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, and other agreements. Finally, I understand that fewer than five countries are taking action against the EU in relation to what this amendment addresses. My first question to my noble friend is, am I right in what I have been advised is the situation? If I am right, what action are the Government taking successfully to overcome what I see as considerable hurdles ahead?
	I am not going to go through the whole of standardised packaging because this is not the appropriate time to do that but, in the round, as far as I see it as a marketing man looking at the evidence, there is as yet no real hard evidence. There are lots of assumptions and attitudes from surveys, but there is no hard evidence that consumption of cigarettes will fall if we have standardised packaging. Consumption is already falling without standardised packaging, and I am sure it will continue to fall in future, but I do not see any hard evidence that that will come.
	What I do see is that it will be very bad for CTNs—confectionary, tobacco and newspaper shops—of which there are well over 100,000 in the United Kingdom. About 20% to 25% of their business is dependent on tobacco products. It is exceedingly bad news for them. It is pretty bad news for the 60,000-odd people employed in the industry. It is exceedingly good news for the counterfeiters, and we see increasing evidence of the number of counterfeit products. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head—these are facts. We have facts on the importation of counterfeit products.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The figures on counterfeiting reached a peak in 2000 and have been steadily falling year by year. If the noble Lord had listened to my remarks earlier, he would have heard that I said that there is no reason why standard packaging should not be at least as secure as existing branded packs.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I would like to ask a short question.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report. Noble Lords have one opportunity to speak. They can intervene to ask a question to seek elucidation from somebody who is speaking. Providing that is what noble Lords do, those interventions are all right. They must seek clarification from, or ask a question of, the person who is speaking.

Lord Naseby: I reassure the House that I do not intend to speak for very much longer. I respond to the noble Lord opposite by pointing out that the latest figures for Australia indicate an increase of 13% following the introduction of standardised packaging for counterfeit and illegal cigarettes. Therefore the most current evidence—perhaps he can get up to date—is a little more relevant. To finish on standardised packaging, if 20% of our nation smokes legitimately, and we have a legitimate industry, do people not have a right to choose between one pack which they like the look of as opposed to another pack?
	I will finish with Australia. I, too, welcome Sir Cyril Chantler as chairman. I also know him quite well and have known him for a very long time. He will already be able to see two results. One is that standardised packaging has done absolutely nothing to the prevalence of smoking in Australia, and the other, as I have just mentioned as evidence to the noble Lord opposite, is the worrying fact that the illegal market has increased by 13%, up to an all-time high in Australia of 13% of all consumption.
	I draw the House’s attention to a book in the Library which refers to the situation in the United Kingdom during the war. It is called Black Market Britain, 1939-55, by Mark Roodhouse, and it features, among other evidence, what happened to the cigarette market during the time of the black market. I refer to that book because if we go down the route of standardised packaging, a black market will undoubtedly emerge.
	I wish Sir Cyril well; we await his report with interest, and I am sure that it will be balanced and thorough. However, whatever that report produces, I ask that first, the Government will give adequate time to this House to have a short debate on it, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that the industry will have a reasonable amount of time—and by that I mean some weeks and not days—to look at the evidence that is provided by Sir Cyril and to put its view to the Secretary of State on its interpretation.
	Finally, I will wind up on a couple of other questions, specifically on proposed subsection (4)(d) of Amendment 57B on,
	“reducing the appeal or attractiveness of tobacco products”.
	I submit that that has little to do with the packaging. Proposed subsection (8)(d), which refers to,
	“the shape of such products”—
	as opposed to the package—does not have anything to do with the packaging, and proposed subsection (8)(e) would even more insidiously apply to,
	“the flavour of such products”.
	Given that by nature all cigarettes are different, as tobacco is a vegetable product and they all taste different, I do not see how on earth the Secretary of State can intervene regarding the flavour of tobacco. I have already mentioned the contrast between the consent of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and our own home Parliament.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening earlier. I wanted to ask a short and straightforward question of the Minister. Should the noble Earl’s amendment be accepted—I hope it is because I greet it hugely; noble Lords will know how much it means to me—can he tell us in his summing up what the timetable is likely to be as regards when the research would take place and how long it might take? If, when that was completed, the outcome was positive—I recognise that because it is research it could go either way—when would the Government be likely to bring in the legislation? I recognise that we are moving towards an election and I hope that the Minister would want to get this on the statute book before he might or might not leave office. We already have legislation on not displaying cigarettes,
	but I still go in to my local tobacconist and see displays of cigarettes, so I wonder what is happening about that.

Lord Storey: My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 57B and 62. First, on Amendment 57B, the Government are to be congratulated. The package that they propose—if I dare to use the term “package”—of proxy purchase, e-cigarettes and looking at the whole question of standardised packaging of cigarettes and tobacco products is to be welcomed. I think it will result in thousands of people being saved from getting respiratory and lung diseases; it will save literally thousands of lives. I congratulate the Minister and the Government. I want also to thank those cross-party noble Lords who put down the original amendment, because they initiated this debate.
	On Amendment 62, I said in Committee and say again: some noble Lords have mentioned their grandchildren. Can you imagine carrying your grandson or granddaughter in a carry-cot, putting that child into a metal box—a car—and allowing somebody to pump cigarette fumes into that metal box? You would not do that at all; you would not allow that to happen. Whatever our concerns are about personal space or civil liberties or whatever it is, this is about the rights of a child; the rights of a baby. A baby cannot say, “Well, actually, I don’t mind”; a child cannot say, “Actually, I don’t mind”. In fact, research—certainly from talking to children—shows that they do mind. As we have heard, we can see when we look at the figures that children are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke. Why? Because they have small lungs, because they have faster breathing, and because they have a less developed immune system. That makes them more susceptible to respiratory problems: asthma, bronchitis and lung malfunction. Knowing that, and that passive smoking results in more than 165,000 new episodes of all sorts of diseases associated with lungs and respiration—and I am talking about children here—are we serious about allowing children and babies to be strapped in a car where that happens? Surely not; all the other arguments pale into insignificance.
	We seem to cite lots of surveys here. Interestingly, in 2010 a survey that directly asked 11 year-olds and 15 year-olds found that one in five reported being exposed to second-hand smoke in cars.
	A number of people have said, “How are we going to make this happen? The police are very busy; can we really make it happen?”. I have two answers to that. Do noble Lords remember when seat-belt legislation was suggested? People got up and said, “Oh no, this is an attack on my civil liberties; oh no, we will solve the problem by advertising”. It was the “clunk click” advertisement, was it not? Oh—perhaps we had better move on from that. With the “clunk click” advertisements, in fact, something like 24% of people started to belt up in cars. Legislation was then brought in and we found that 97% of people then put on a seat belt. We do that automatically; we do not think about it, or sit in our cars saying, “This is an infringement of our liberties; we shouldn’t be doing this”; we do it. Why do we do it? Because it saves lives: it saves our lives and the lives of other people who are travelling in the car.
	Interestingly, a study conducted in Scotland—we talk about Scotland a lot in this Chamber, thank goodness—suggested that air quality inside a smoker’s car was comparable to industrial smog in cities such as Beijing or Moscow, even when the driver has the window open. Are we seriously suggesting that children and young people should be subjected to air quality which is akin to that in Beijing or Moscow? Of course, we are not. Research by Aberdeen University found that 7% of 11 year-olds experience smoking in cars. That is why I am pleased that one of my colleagues in Scotland, the Liberal Democrat MSP, Jim Hume, is introducing a Private Member’s Bill looking at safeguarding children by banning smoking in cars. That is now going out to public consultation.
	I end by making two further brief points. It is easy to find all sorts of reasons why you cannot do something. We could ask, “What about cars that are convertible? What about yachts? What about this? What about that?”. However, if you believe in something and think that it is right, you get on and do it. My only regret regarding the amendment is that it was initially an all-party amendment. When I listen to the news, I hear that it is a Labour initiative. I am sorry that it has been politicised and has become a party-political issue; I hoped that it would not be.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord has made an impassioned speech. My understanding was that the original cross-party amendment had been degrouped and would be taken only late at night. I therefore brought forward this amendment to enable the House to make a decision. I agree with him about the cross-party nature of the debate.

Lord Storey: I respect what the noble Lord says and thank him for it.
	The Minister is a listening Minister. I hope that he will reflect on what has been said and accept the amendment because it is important to take the whole House with him on issues such as this. I hope that he will look again at continuing the advertising campaign but, perhaps more importantly, that he will consider a review of this issue so that we can go forward on it together.

Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I wish to add a word on the amendment about smoking in cars when children are present. I do not wish to say anything about standardised packaging because I thoroughly support the amendment on that. However, so far as smoking is concerned, the support for the relevant amendment is focused on smoking in motor cars. However, that is not what the amendment says. It refers to “a private vehicle”. Motor cars are a very common—perhaps the most common—species of private vehicle, but there are all sorts of other private vehicles that one must take into account as well. The word “drives”, commonly used in relation to motor vehicles, comes from the driving of carriages and ponies and traps. Suppose that somebody has a pony and trap, and has a child in the trap, why on earth should he or she not smoke? If this amendment were confined
	simply to motor cars, I would have no objection to it at all; indeed, I think that I would support it. However, in relation to all private vehicles, it simply goes too far. I do not believe that was intended and I think the wording should be modified accordingly.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think the score is about 10 or 11 to one in favour of the amendments. I will be the second noble Lord to speak against both amendments. I shall take a little while to do so.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If we consider this in terms of the time given to the “fors” and the “againsts”, as I have already said, it is about 11 to one, and it is going to be about 11 to two. I intend to make the points that I intended to make before this debate started.
	First, I declare my interest. I am an associate member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers’ Club. I am an associate member because I do not smoke, but I believe that users of a legal product should be allowed to enjoy it without continuous harassment by government and an army of lobbyists such as ASH, which is subsidised, and the BMA. Smokers, unfortunately, are treated as social lepers, although let us not forget that they contribute some £10.5 billion per annum to the Treasury. If they are such lepers, perhaps we should not accept their money.
	In my view, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is perhaps one of the most extreme Henry VIII pieces of legislation that I have ever seen, and I am sorry to see that it is in his name. I want to take the House back in history to 4 February 2009. Let us hear what the noble Earl said then, when we were discussing the ban on tobacco displays:
	“The Bill’s proposals to outlaw point-of-sale displays of tobacco products are unjustified and repressive. The evidence to back them up is flimsy, and the data has been hyped. In 2002, when tobacco advertising was banned, the Government said that they had no plans to interfere with the right of retailers to display a perfectly legal product in shops. We must be absolutely sure of our ground before removing that right”.—[Official Report, 4/2/09; col. 749.]
	I believe that the noble Earl was right then and is wrong today because he is going further than the previous Government dared to do. Not only have we banned the display of cigarette packets and what have you but now plain packaging will be banned as well, and that seems quite an absurdity.
	The new clause proposed in Amendment 57B is so detailed as to be almost incomprehensible. The Government are now proposing to intervene in the nooks and crannies of design and, indeed, even in the fabric of cigarette and other tobacco packets. There are 19 ways in which the Government are going to intervene and tell the tobacco manufacturers how they can display their products. That, I believe, is going much too far. In passing, I suppose that I ought to note that the display legislation is not yet fully operative—small retailers will not be banned from displaying these products until 2015. So here we are, before the
	ban even comes into force, going even further than the previous Government did, which at the time the noble Earl, Lord Howe, opposed.
	We have heard a lot in the past few days about cutting regulation but the Government are also increasing regulation, of which this amendment is the nastiest example. I do not have time to go into the complete detail, although I should go through the whole amendment but I will not.
	Whether these measures will discourage young people from taking up smoking is doubtful. Youngsters take up smoking for a whole range of reasons, not just because of the packaging. There is no real evidence that plain packaging will prevent youngsters starting to smoke. There has been no proper consultation about it. Indeed, we were informed by the noble Earl that there will not be any consultation on this matter. This proposal will set a precedent for other products, such as alcohol, sweets and products containing sugar, and fatty foods that are causing an obesity crisis which is costing the health service even more than smoking. I certainly oppose the government amendment.
	As I pointed out earlier, I am surprised that smoking in private vehicles is being discussed with plain packaging. It is a completely different issue which should be discussed separately. We are saying that children will be at risk from second-hand smoke but surely noble Lords realise that a car must have air input and output. PN10s from diesel and petrol fumes pass through cars. Therefore, children in cars ingest dangerous fumes even where there is no smoking. What are we going to do? Are we going to ban cars from the road? It really is quite ridiculous.
	Furthermore, it will be very difficult to enforce this type of legislation. We are not yet able properly to enforce not using mobile phones in moving vehicles. Anyone who travels along a motorway knows perfectly well that practically every lorry driver is using a mobile phone, yet we know that very few of them are prosecuted, let alone fined, for doing so. Enforcement will be extremely difficult.
	What will be the next step? People against smoking will not stop at smoking in cars. They will want to stop smoking in homes where there are children. Noble Lords will say that that will not happen but there have already been proposals to do that. That would be an amazing interference in people’s lives. I am against the extension of bans on smoking. Let me add that I was born in south Wales in the Rhondda Valley, in a small three-bedroom terraced house. My sister and I lived with our parents and grandparents. My step-grandfather, grandmother, mother and father smoked. I have to say that it has not done me very much damage. In May, I shall be 88 years of age.
	People may well think that I have gone on too long. However, what has certainly not done me any damage was the fact that the whole of my family smoked, as indeed did most people in the Rhondda, because that was the only thing that could relieve the awfulness of the slums and unemployment that they were suffering at that time. I am sorry that these amendments have been tabled. I know that if there is a vote we shall be very heavily outvoted, but we shall see.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, different views have been expressed by a number of noble Lords and I shall speak very briefly. The accumulated evidence relating to plain packaging of cigarettes that has arisen over the past few years is incontrovertible, and for that reason the Government’s amendment is extremely welcome.
	So far as smoking in cars is concerned, there is no doubt whatever that passive smoking is extremely dangerous. The concentration of the effects of passive smoking within an enclosed space such as a motor car is particularly dangerous for children. Again, the medical evidence on this is incontrovertible. The point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Scott, on the issue of people smoking in a pony and trap, is an interesting one but could readily be dealt with by regulations under the amendment to restrict the provisions to enclosed motor cars and so forth.
	I listened exceptionally carefully to the very erudite and persuasive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose views I normally fully support and accept. Unlike him, who was disgusted by smoking two Woodbines behind the bike sheds, I first smoked a Woodbine in a mining village in County Durham at the age of 10 and I enjoyed it. By the time I was a teenager, I was a regular smoker. When I was in the Army in the late 1940s as second in command of a hospital ship, I could get a can of 50 Senior Service for one shilling and eight pence, which lasted me two days, so I was a heavy smoker. It took me a long time to get over it.
	The question I would put to the noble Lord and the noble Earl is this: the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, took a great deal of time to talk about the difficulty of policing this amendment if it were carried into law. But is it any more difficult for the police to recognise someone smoking in a vehicle containing children than it is to recognise someone who is not wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone illegally? I do not believe that it is. For that reason, I support the amendment.

Baroness Hughes of Stretford: My Lords, this has been an important but very long debate. However, my name is attached to three of the amendments in the group and I beg the indulgence of the House to make a few comments in, I hope, concluding the debate before the Minister responds. I want to thank the Minister in particular for his role in responding to the widespread support for standardised packaging within and beyond the House. The crucial role that he personally played in the Government conceding on this measure is recognised across the House. I am also grateful for his commitment on the record today that it is the Government’s clear intention to implement these measures as soon as possible, subject to the outcome of the evidential review. I hope that he can further confirm that the action will follow very swiftly in response to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the timetable.
	The Government’s intention to bring forward at Third Reading measures to ban proxy purchasing of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, taken together with this amendment on standardised packaging, will make a significant difference to the exposure to and take-up
	of cigarettes by young people. However, there is one other distinct and significant health hazard to children from smoking that we should include in this package of measures, and that is in relation to smoking in private vehicles and enclosed vehicles.
	Our Amendment 57BB would simply enable the Government to bring forward regulations to make it an offence to expose children to tobacco smoke in cars, once the Government, with others, had reviewed the detailed implications and practicalities that such a measure would entail. That process of review and developing regulations would take account of all the questions raised across the House today about what if, would it mean this and would it mean that. It is an enabling amendment.
	When it was first proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Grand Committee, I was profoundly struck by the power of her argument about the particular vulnerability of children in this very enclosed situation and the impact on their health and development at their immature stage. It is obvious. I have heard no dissent in the House today about why passive smoking by children in cars is a very bad thing and ideally should not happen. I will not rehearse those arguments, which have been very well made again today by Members across the House.
	However, I want to focus briefly on concerns that have been expressed about the amendment and the arguments against it. There have been three main arguments. One is the basic libertarian argument that people should be free to do what they like in their cars because they are private spaces and should not be fettered. But when we are considering freedoms, as we have done in our history, there is always a balance. Freedom for some is often at the expense of freedom for other people. The balance we are considering here is between the freedom for adults to smoke in cars when they like and the freedom for children not to breathe in that smoke in a situation from which they, by definition, as several noble Lords pointed out, cannot escape.
	When responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for whom I have great respect, as he knows, said that there is a difference between smoking, which is a legal activity, and other things that we have prohibited in the home in relation to children. But the things that we were talking about then, such as neglect of children and the beating of children, have not always been illegal in the home. They were made illegal because they are particularly harmful to the well-being of children. We take it for granted now that such things are illegal but they were not always. We invaded that private space because of the need to protect children. The same argument applies. Because of the degree of damage that we know smoking in cars causes, we should apply the same argument here.

Lord Cormack: I have been thinking a lot during this debate. Is not the answer to make it obligatory for all new cars to have a smoke alarm fitted?

Baroness Hughes of Stretford: That particular measure would not deal with the issue of prohibition, so I cannot see how it would necessarily help. The alarm
	may go off, but if it is still legal for adults to smoke with children in the car, there would be no consequence to its going off. There are precedents, because this is a child protection issue, for our proceeding along this route.
	The second argument was: if cars, why not private homes? There have been contributions today that have made it clear, citing research by the British Lung Foundation and other bodies, that there are real and qualitatively different levels of risk to children from the smoke in a confined space, from which they cannot escape, compared to that in homes. Yes, children will be harmed in some homes where space is limited. That is undoubtedly true. But the potential for children to escape those spaces is clearly there in a home situation. They can go outside as well. In a car, the toxicity levels and the fact that the child is trapped make that a distinctly different situation, of which we should take account with this amendment.
	The third argument has concerned the difficulty of enforcement.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I know that people want to make progress, but just on this point about private space—where the noble Baroness is making the distinction between a motorcar where the children cannot escape and, say, a room in a small flat where there are smokers—what about a baby in a carry-cot? They cannot move to another room.

Baroness Hughes of Stretford: No, that is true. I know that the noble Lord is very exercised by these issues, and I respect his point of view. A baby of itself could not move to another room. However—we have these arguments in many ways—the fact that we cannot remove the harm to all children in all situations presented by passive smoking is not an argument in itself for not taking the action that we could take to reduce the harm to the majority of children in the most dangerous situations. That is the argument in support of this amendment.
	The third argument we heard was about enforcement. Again, we had some helpful contributions which I was going to make myself, but I shall just mention them. This is primarily not about enforcement, and we have precedence here with the ban on using mobile phones in cars, the mandatory use of seat belts and the ban on smoking in public places. All of those were hotly contested before legislation came in. I particularly remember the ban on smoking in public places because I was involved in it. That measure not only established smoke-free common areas for people but, equally importantly—and it is true of the other two measures—precipitated the biggest reduction in smoking we have seen: a significant and beneficial change in behaviour on a massive scale. That is the issue here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out. I have no doubt that this would precipitate a very significant change in behaviour in relation to smoking in cars with children. Particularly when we see so much public support for the measure, I think that we could anticipate that.
	I say again that Amendment 57BB is enabling. It would entail further discussion about the practicalities and the detail of the regulation. We fully accept the
	need for that and welcome it. However, it is an important measure for children and I hope that the House will support it.

Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a fascinating and very helpful debate and I am very pleased with the support that I have heard for the government amendments on standardised packaging. I would like, if I may, to commend noble Lords for their continued work in supporting tobacco control. We all want to drive down rates of smoking in this country and, in particular, to stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place. Let me address the points on standardised packaging first.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lord McColl tabled a revised amendment following discussion in Grand Committee, and I see that they reflected the comments that I made in redrafting it. I particularly welcome their support for the Government’s amendments and can reassure them that our amendments would achieve all of the things that they seek to do.
	My noble friend Lord Naseby raised a number of legal issues. I would like to reassure him that we have given very careful consideration to the legal situation. We believe that the government amendment gives us sufficient room to proceed with the regulations, should we choose to do so, and introduce standardised packaging, if that is what is decided. He queried the fact that the amendment is drafted in such a way that the devolved Administrations and Assemblies have to give consent, but it is the Secretary of State and not Parliament who gives consent in England. We do of course want Parliament to have a say, which is why we have introduced Amendment 63B to make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—whose robust state of health I very much welcome—indicated that there has been no proper consultation on standardised packaging. In fact, in 2012 the Government ran a full public consultation and received almost 2,500 substantive responses and well over half a million postcard and petition responses. The consultation asked 15 specific questions and invited comments on the consultation stage impact assessment, which was also published. So it was a very thorough exercise.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that this was the thin end of the wedge, if I can put it that way, and might herald similar measures in relation to junk food. I think we need to remember that tobacco is a uniquely harmful consumer good. Tobacco kills one in two long-term smokers. There is no safe level of smoking. That is why we have a range of specific legislation and an international treaty around tobacco control.
	My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to illicit tobacco. We received a wide range of responses to the question in the consultation on illicit tobacco. They are summarised in the consultation report. In 2000, around 21% of the UK cigarette market was illicit. The latest estimate from HMRC, for 2012-13, is that this has dropped to around 9%. It is too high, I concede, but we are heading in a positive direction.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked about the timetable for the regulations. I emphasise here that I do not want to pre-empt any decision that the Government may make on whether to proceed with standardised tobacco packaging, and I know that the noble Baroness understands that; but equally for that reason, it would be premature to set out a detailed timetable. What I can confirm is that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure an appropriate opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. She may like to be aware that before being laid in Parliament, any draft regulation that seeks to regulate tobacco packaging would need to be notified to the European Commission and member states. There is a process that goes with that, which would mean that we would not be able to lay regulations instantly after taking a positive decision. I am happy, however, to reiterate the Government’s commitment to make a decision quickly when we receive Sir Cyril Chantler’s independent report. Tabling these amendments is, I hope, evidence of our commitment to act without delay if we decide to go ahead. But the Government, as I am sure she appreciates, must rightly consider the wider issues raised by this policy, and I can assure her that we will do so.
	I can understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in tabling both of his amendments, Amendments 57BA and 61, which seek to compel Ministers to introduce standardised packaging. However, I am sure that he will not be surprised to hear me say that we cannot accept provisions that tie our hands in this way. One of the amendments imposes an arbitrary timetable for government action, and both pre-empt Ministers’ proper and careful decision-making, involving consideration of all the relevant issues. Litigation by the tobacco industry is always a risk when introducing tobacco control legislation. Indeed, the World Health Organisation says that one of the six main forms of tobacco industry interference in public health is the intimidation of Governments with litigation or the threat of litigation. Government must have time and space to give proper consideration to the wider issues raised by standardised packaging of tobacco, and demonstrate that it has done so. Doing so will also reduce the risk of successful litigation. I do appreciate the desire to go faster but we must follow the proper decision-making process to enable us to arrive at the right policy decision. It is right that we should wait for Sir Cyril’s report. Once we do, I say again, we will make a decision quickly.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me to put on the record that we will definitely introduce the regulations should the case be made and should we be persuaded of the case that Sir Cyril presents. I hope that I have been clear about that. I will repeat the comments made by my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health when she announced the review:
	“The Government will introduce standardised tobacco packaging if, following the review and consideration of the wider issues raised by this policy, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed, including public health benefit”.—[Official Report, 28/11/13; col. WS96.]
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lord McColl for having made clear their
	intention not to press their amendment on standardised packaging. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will do the same with theirs.
	I turn to smoking in cars. Since we considered the issue at the previous stage of the Bill, I have met a number of noble Lords who support the idea of legislating to stop smoking in cars with children present. I have also listened very carefully to the debate as it has proceeded this afternoon. One thing is clear from those meetings and the debate—we all want to eradicate smoking in cars carrying children. None of us wants to see children continuing to be exposed to harmful second-hand smoke, whether in the home or the family car. However, although we agree on the destination, I have to acknowledge that there are differing views on the most effective route. As your Lordships will know, the Government believe that encouraging positive and lasting behaviour change by making smokers aware of the significant health risks of second-hand smoke will be more effective than resorting to the use of legislation—which is of course a blunt instrument—to tackle the problem. I believe very clearly that we should consider resorting to the use of legislation only if our work to promote positive changes in behaviour is shown not to have had the desired effect.
	When we debated this issue in Grand Committee, a good deal of time was spent considering the practicalities of enforcing an offence of smoking in cars carrying children. I do not propose to rehearse those arguments in detail again today. Nevertheless, I want to encourage your Lordships to reflect on just how difficult it would be to enforce such a provision. My noble friend Lord Cormack referred to this. In my view, there would be substantial challenges in enforcing any such legislation, particularly with respect to vehicles travelling at speed. Currently, local authorities enforce smoke-free legislation, but they do not have the powers or the means to require moving vehicles to pull over. We would need therefore to set up a complex and probably resource-intensive enforcement regime, which would need to involve the police. These remaining questions of how to achieve effective enforcement undermine the credibility of the measures that have been proposed. If it were known that there was little chance of enforcement action, I have to ask whether individuals would comply with the law.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Would he accept that my amendment has been drafted in a way that allows your Lordships to vote on the principle but then allows for work to be done, hopefully cross-party, and for the Government to bring in regulations, during which some of these matters could be talked out thoroughly?

Earl Howe: I have noted the way the noble Lord’s amendment has been drafted. However, we need to be very careful before accepting it, for the reasons that I am explaining now. One of the points made about enforcement was that we could make a useful comparison with seat-belt legislation. I understand why that comparison has been made but it needs to be borne in mind that we are not comparing like with like. Seat-belt
	legislation is a road safety measure which is properly enforced by the police; smoking in cars is a public health matter and the police have no public health role or functions. That is part of the reason that the issue is so complex. Before launching into the kind of amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, invites us to accept, we need to take stock of these questions. There is no point in putting something on the statute book if it is impractical to implement.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: Can I just ask the noble Earl whether the police have a duty in respect of alcohol abuse and violence in the streets?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the police obviously have public order responsibilities, which they can enforce—but not public health responsibilities, which is rather a different issue.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: With the growing number of jurisdictions now adopting measures of the sort that are proposed in the amendment, will the Minister at least give an assurance that the department will look at the experience in countries where smoking in cars when children are present has been banned and look particularly at the way in which it is being enforced there, and by whom?

Earl Howe: I am coming in a minute to talk about consultation, which is one of the questions that my noble friend Lord Ribeiro asked, and I hope I can at least utter some words of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, as regards his question.
	I will focus for a moment on why the Government prefer to achieve behaviour change without recourse to imposing the law. We believe that our approach is making a distinct impact, both in terms of raising awareness and, more importantly, changing behaviour. There is a very simple point to be made here, which was made by my noble friend Lady Tyler. I cannot believe that any parent would want, knowingly, to expose their child or children to harm. I am convinced that smoking in family cars and the home is much more likely to be due to a simple lack of understanding among smokers about how damaging to health second-hand smoke can be. Our social marketing campaigns remind us that more than 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible. Our campaigns have used the strap-line:
	“If you could see what’s really there you wouldn’t smoke”.
	That is why we are focusing our efforts on raising awareness of the harm caused and on encouraging smokers to modify their smoking behaviour.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to pregnant women and whether we would regulate to protect them. I understand of course how vulnerable the child is when still in the womb, and the noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of how harmful second-hand smoke can be, especially for people with respiratory conditions such as asthma.

Baroness Hughes of Stretford: Does the Minister not agree that the impact of the legislation prohibiting smoking in public places, to protect the public and
	people working in common areas, had a much greater and more immediate impact than all the public awareness work that was done before then?

Earl Howe: I am the first to say that legislation passed by the previous Administration has had a marked and profound effect and has been widely welcomed. However, we are now dealing with something that we know can be influenced by public marketing campaigns. I shall mention how effective those have been in a moment.
	With regard to pregnant women, there is a need to encourage everybody to be aware of the risks to health from second-hand smoke. We are achieving high levels of awareness as well as changing attitudes and behaviours. Almost three-quarters of those surveyed said that our campaigns had made them realise that smoking out of an open door or window was not enough to protect children from second-hand smoke. More than a third of those who saw the adverts reported that they had taken action to reduce their children’s exposure to second-hand smoke after seeing them. Those results emerged from the evaluation of last year’s campaign and the campaign that we ran in 2012.
	I have to say that I am slightly surprised to hear how strongly the Opposition feel about creating legislation to end smoking in cars, because that is at odds with the position that they took on this issue when in government. The 2010 tobacco control strategy included commitments on smoking in cars that align entirely with my Government’s current approach. That strategy said:
	“By increasing the level of awareness of the harms of secondhand smoke, particularly to children, we will encourage people to voluntarily make their homes and private cars completely smokefree”.
	That is the stance that the party opposite took when in government and, to pay a little tribute to them, we have followed their lead. Your Lordships will recognise that there is a long way to go. Achieving behaviour change in public health takes time but we are heading in the right direction and the key is maintaining the momentum we are generating.
	That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government will run another smoke-free homes and cars campaign this year, as explained in my letter to noble Lords earlier this week. We are finalising the details with colleagues in Public Health England, but our intention is that the campaign will take place in the spring. In addition to a mix of TV and digital advertising, we will work with local and commercial partners to spread the message through their networks. The campaign will be designed to maximise the potential of social media in making our messages clear and accessible to as many people as possible. I hope that that serves to reassure your Lordships that the Government are working hard to make progress in this important area. Our approach is to change smoking behaviour in both the home and family car.
	In addition to the campaign activity, we will look at what more we might do to speed up the pace of change. Some local authorities are taking forward excellent work with their local communities to promote not only smoke-free homes and cars but also smoke-free environments such as playgrounds. Working with Public Health England, we will encourage more of this good practice to denormalise smoking, particularly in settings
	where children are present. I have asked Public Health England to look at what more we can do to spread this good practice.
	This year’s smoke-free homes and cars campaign will be the Government’s third successive one, as I mentioned. At its conclusion, we will undertake a complete analysis of the progress that we have made through the campaigns. At that point the Government will give careful consideration to whether our action has had a meaningful impact in reducing smoking in cars carrying children. If health Ministers are not satisfied with the progress made, we will give serious consideration to what more can be done. I can tell my noble friend Lord Ribeiro that we will, if need be, conduct a public consultation so that we can understand how others feel about this issue, and to enable us to consider further the practicality and likely effectiveness of other measures to tackle smoking in cars carrying children, including legislative measures. I do not rule out legislation if our current course does not deliver the desired effect.
	The Government take this matter extremely seriously, particularly the issue of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people. We have tabled the amendment today on standardised packaging. We intend to make proxy purchasing of tobacco an offence and prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to people under 18. If the Government are not satisfied with progress after this year’s smoke-free homes and cars campaign, we will give serious consideration to what more could be done, including a public consultation. I hope that that indicates our seriousness of purpose.
	On the amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition I repeat what I said in Grand Committee. If we cannot credibly enforce the law, the law loses credibility. I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to work with all interested parties to protect children from second-hand smoke. I hope that in the light of the assurances that I have given that the noble Lord will not press his amendment on that topic.
	Amendment 57BA (to Amendment 57B) not moved.
	Amendment 57B agreed.
	Amendment 57BB
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	57BB: Before Clause 80, insert the following new Clause—
	“Protection of Children’s health: offence of smoking in a private vehicle
	The Secretary of State may bring forward regulations making it an offence for any person who drives a private vehicle to fail to prevent smoking in the vehicle when a child or children are present.”

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move.

Division on Amendment 57BB
	Contents 222; Not-Contents 197.
	Amendment 57BB agreed.

Amendment 57BC
	 Moved by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
	57BC: Before Clause 80, insert the following new Clause—
	“Welfare of children: housing benefit
	(1) The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2006 are amended as follows.
	(2) In regulation B13 (determination of maximum rent (social sector)), inserted by regulation 5 of the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012—
	(a) in paragraph (5), at beginning insert “Subject to paragraph (5A)”; and
	(b) after paragraph (5) insert—
	“(5A) The relevant authority shall make a determination that the restriction to one bedroom under paragraph (5) does not apply if it is in the interests of the welfare of a child or the children living in the dwelling to make such a determination.””

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, the amendment is about the impact of the bedroom tax on children. I refer noble Lords to my housing association interests recorded in the register.
	This simple amendment would allow local authorities to put the welfare of the child first when assessing the appropriate occupancy level in a home. Many aspects of the bedroom tax are unfair and unjust, and we have raised them repeatedly in this House. This amendment picks on one simple theme which has quite rightly dominated our consideration of the Bill so far: that the interests and the welfare of the child should always come first. This issue has united us around the Chamber, and I hope that noble Lords will support the continuation of this principle, reflected in this amendment.
	We already know that the bedroom tax hits families hard. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation has described the policy as,
	“an unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families”.
	It has resulted in an estimated 150,000 families with children being hit so far, forced out of their homes or pushed deeper into poverty and debt. We know from consistent research that children who are forced to move home, away from settled communities and their schooling, suffer health problems and have poorer educational outcomes. Meanwhile, families who stay put suffer an average loss of income of £14 a week, with much higher losses for many, impacting on their ability to feed and clothe their children.
	The bedroom tax also has a disproportionate impact on disabled adults and children. Housing association studies have shown that a significant proportion of those affected are either disabled themselves or care for someone who is disabled. Many of them live in homes with adaptations, making it difficult and expensive to move. Others use their spare room for bulky medical equipment or facilities for visiting carers.
	There are other adverse welfare implications of the bedroom tax. Recently, there was publicity for the very sad case of the Hollow family, whose 11 year-old son, Caleb, died in a car crash. After a year, the family were told that they had to move to a smaller property, causing added distress to Caleb’s siblings, who were still grieving for their lost brother and who now face the further disruption of a house move or a slide into poverty.
	There is also the ongoing issue of the impact on foster carers. When we debated it in Committee, we welcomed the Government’s concession to allow one additional room in their home as long as they had registered as a foster carer or fostered a child within the previous 12 months. However, the reforms still apply to foster carers who have two or three bedrooms for fostered children. Foster carers could be deterred
	from providing foster care for more than one child at a time, so that more children would be more likely to be separated from their siblings. Given that there is already a shortage of foster carers in the UK, these reforms are likely to mean fewer new recruits coming forward and children’s well-being suffering as a result.
	The application of these policies has seen local authorities and housing associations being put in an impossible position, trying to minimise the impact of badly designed policies on local people. As we know, there is often a mismatch in accommodation so that there are simply not enough smaller units even if tenants wish to move.
	Meanwhile, under this Government, housing completions are at their lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. Local authorities find themselves trapped trying to implement an unworkable policy with little flexibility. Quite often, their only solution for tenants who are unable to downsize is to move them into the private rented sector, with all the additional housing benefit costs and the poorer standards that this entails.
	The Government’s main response so far to the increasing number of tales of poverty and distress has been to set up the discretionary fund to support the most vulnerable families. However, alarmingly, the Local Government Association has reported a dramatic increase in the number of people requesting emergency financial help, with 81% of councils experiencing a sharp increase in the number of applications to the discretionary housing payments scheme, most of which are being made to stop people losing their homes. This demand is so great that councils report it is outstripping the money made available by the DWP, forcing them to make cuts to services in other areas. Anyway, these funds are, by their very nature, temporary, require regular reapplications and provide no ongoing stability for the families concerned. The Government have also issued guidance to local authorities on the application of the rules concerning children’s disability but again they have no obligation in law and the Minister will know that children’s charities remain concerned about the provisions and continue to challenge them.
	We believe that our amendment gives local authorities the flexibility they need, based on their local knowledge and their local circumstances, to operate the bedroom tax rules to put the welfare and the interests of the child first. We believe that this would be welcomed by all those trying to implement this unwieldy and unjust policy. It would allow them to make an informed judgment of the options available to individual families in their local area to avoid some of the perverse outcomes that arise from the rules and to guarantee that the interests of the child are safeguarded. We believe that this is a simple but important amendment, in keeping with the spirit of the remainder of the Bill, and I urge noble Lords to support it.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords I support Amendment 57BC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I have added my name. She eloquently set out the case for the amendment and I will not repeat her comprehensive and cogent arguments. I have no doubt that the Government will regard the amendment as too wide-ranging. It provides for a
	determination setting aside the bedroom tax, potentially for a very large number of families. For a considerable number of families a move into new and smaller accommodation will be contrary to the interests and the welfare of the child. At the lower level of harms—if one can call them lower level—a house move may involve the children having to change school at the same time as they move home. Other children will move away from a grandparent or somebody else who looks after them when their parents are working. These sorts of changes could have very serious consequences for very sensitive children—not necessarily just disabled ones. At its most serious, a move may deprive a family of the basic space they need in order to continue managing a severely disabled child, or indeed an adult, in the family and therefore keeping the family intact. I want to focus on this to avoid duplication.
	We know that families with a disabled child have been disproportionately disadvantaged by the bedroom tax, although the Government accept and have made changes to ensure that a disabled child should at least have a room of their own. That was certainly progress. The Minister always tells us that the discretionary housing payment is the answer to all possible problems. It will no doubt help many families with a short-term problem, if they are able to move into smaller accommodation—that is a big if—without serious consequences for a child or for the family as a whole, but where there is a short delay before the move can take place. I guess that would work pretty well. I accept that discretionary housing payments can be a helpful safety net for some people in the short term. That is how I think I see it working.
	However, to illustrate a point, let us take the case of Mary Jane—not her real name—who is blind and unable to walk or talk. Mary Jane’s mother has what might be described as a spare room. It is not a spare bedroom and not actually a spare room at all. It is a vital sensory haven for her very severely, multiply disabled daughter. The room contains a ball pool: a plastic space full of balls of different textures and sizes in which her daughter can sit and have a little bit of pleasure in life—not very much but a little. The room is also a storage space for Mary Jane’s wheelchairs and other aids that enable her to be moved round the house because, of course, her mother cannot lift her.
	This family cannot reasonably move into smaller accommodation. One can never envisage a time when they could. If they were forced to do so, how long would it be before Mary Jane was being admitted to residential care, at considerable cost to the taxpayer? Instead, this mother has been asked to find an extra £570 bedroom tax per year for her essential space. I emphasise “essential”. We are not talking about a luxury here. That is the point of my remarks. For a small number of families extra space is not a luxury. Yes, Mary Jane’s mother has now been awarded a discretionary housing payment that should cover the shortfall, apparently, for the start of the year. However, what is that to this mother who has the most enormous stresses to start with and now wonders whether she is going to be able to stay in her home with a little bit of
	extra space? She will have to claim these payments—as I understand it but I think the Minister has questioned this—or may have to claim them over and again with no certainty about whether or when she might be turned down. These payments are discretionary and will continue to be so. This is for very good reasons for many families but for these families it is a disaster.
	First, does the Minister believe that it is right to cause that degree of uncertainty and inevitable stress for a committed carer who is, in fact, saving the taxpayer very large amounts of money every year? This one claimant already says that she has had to cut back on absolutely everything, including food. Presumably that was before she got this discretionary payment but then she is thinking, “My God, when this comes to an end, what will we do then?”.
	Secondly, if the Minister is not willing to amend the bedroom tax and turns away this amendment, has he calculated the costs and benefits of these provisions for families with a disabled child, taking account of the inevitable number of children who will over time be placed in residential care? What will be the balance of costs and benefits? Is there not an argument—rather a strong one I suggest—to do something about this?
	Finally, will the Minister agree to take this matter away and come back at Third Reading with a proposal to protect some families at least? I understand that the Government are not very happy about a wide discretion or a dismissal of the bedroom tax but it feels very concerning to leave it as it is. These are three serious questions and I hope the Minister will answer them today.

Lord Storey: My Lords, obviously we should be supporting any family in the situation described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Meacher. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rightly pointed to the support that can be received from the discretionary housing subsidy. What I do not understand is why, for example, in my local council in Liverpool, last year £337,000 of government discretionary housing payments were left unspent and returned. The sad thing is that, in every year since 2001-02, a large sum of money has been returned.
	I do not understand why the Local Government Association is telling the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that demand is outstripping provision when currently, after six months, Labour councils have spent only 29% of the allowance. In 2012-13, in England as a whole 37% of discretionary housing subsidy was left unspent. Should we not encourage those councils to use that money to do the same things that both noble Baronesses have suggested? If there is money available, it must be used for that. It is a disgrace, when children are in difficult situations—whether they need support because of physical handicap or whether they are in appalling conditions and need that support—to leave 37% of that money unspent across the whole of England.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, as of August 2013, there were more than 235,000 children—nearly a quarter of a million children—living in households whose benefits have been cut because of the bedroom tax. We do not know how many children have had to move, disrupting their schooling—a point
	that has already been made—their friendships and the social networks which enable their parents to get by with childcare and other things. When I asked the Minister earlier today about the implications of this for the Government’s child poverty strategy, I did not get a direct answer. Inevitably, these families are being pushed further into poverty; there are no two ways about it.
	There have been a number of reports in newspapers about the struggles that many families face trying to get by. I will not read all of them but simply read from the initial comments from the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, who put the case very well. She said:
	“The right to housing is not about a roof anywhere, at any cost, without any social ties. It is not about reshuffling people according to a snapshot of the number of bedrooms at a given night. It is about enabling environments for people to maintain their family and community bonds, their local schools, work places and health services allowing them to exercise all other rights, like education, work, food or health”.
	She continued:
	“Of the many testimonies I have heard, let me say that I have been deeply touched by persons with physical and mental disabilities who have felt targeted instead of protected; of the grandmothers who are carers of their children and grandchildren but are now feeling they are forced to move away from their life-long homes due to a spare bedroom or to run the risk of facing arrears; of the single parents who will not have space for their children when they come to visit; of the many people who are increasingly having to choose between food and paying the penalty. Those who are impacted by this policy were not necessarily the most vulnerable a few months ago, but they were on the margins, facing fragility and housing stress, with little extra income to respond to this situation and already barely coping with their expenses”.
	The amendment will not solve the problem, but it will go some way to alleviate the problems that those families face. Families are really struggling as a result of this measure, and I hope that we can support the amendment to do something for some of those very vulnerable children.

Lord Martin of Springburn: My Lords, briefly, I agree with everything that has been said. There is often criticism in my native city of Glasgow that the housing estates are too big, but those of us who know those housing estates know that there are excellent communities within them. In fact, those of us who have lived in big cities think of them not as a big city but as a collection of villages and communities. Many of the housing estates that I know of and are excellent were built just after the war, when the soldiers came home from the forces. The families were regarded as big. I came from a family of five living in a tenement, and in those days that was a small family—there were families of eight or nine.
	Noble Lords are right to say that there can be a big impact on children if they have to move away from the communities that they enjoy. Most of us have happy memories of the childhood communities we lived in and the support of the extended families who were there. We could end up taking young children out of their school, as has already been stated, and away from their community facilities into a strange area.
	I go back to where I was raised in the city of Glasgow. If a family is in an underoccupied house, that can mean that the house has a garden and a back and front door, which is regarded as significant for a
	family. To go to the proper size of house that the Government suggest could mean that they are forced to take a tenement flat. It has a big impact on a young person to go from a house with a garden to a tenement flat.
	When I have spoken to the Minister, he has been very courteous to me and told me that he will give me a reply on this matter, but he has always mentioned the waiting lists and how long they are. The implication is that, if you have a long waiting list, you will fill the vacant accommodation. That is not necessarily the case. Anyone who has been a constituency MP or a councillor will know that people will come to you to say, “I’ve been on the waiting list for 10 or 12 years”, but when you say, “I can get you a house tomorrow”, they say, “Oh, but I’m not taking a house in this area or that area; I want this particular area”. Those who are on the waiting list exercise a great element of choice.
	I personally have no housing problem either in London or in Glasgow, but I dare say that, legally, there would be nothing to stop me going to the local housing association in Westminster and saying, “I want to put my name on the waiting list”. By the same token, I could do that in Glasgow. Being on a waiting list does not mean that the person on the list is in need. I do not think that the waiting list is necessarily the best measure to use when saying that we can solve the problems caused by people being forced out of their so-called underoccupied houses.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, briefly, I think that the Minister has a choice when he responds to the amendment, which was so effectively moved by my noble friend. He can say either that children of a certain group—disabled children, children in poverty or whatever—are exempt from the application of the bedroom tax to the tenancy, or he can say, on the contrary, we will leave it to local authorities to exercise their discretion, so that the response you get is a lottery based on where you live, and you have all the problems associated with what is effectively means testing.
	The advantage of the first path is that you can perfectly easily have ways of ensuring that certain families with children do not come into the category of the bedroom tax as such. You could say that children on disability living allowance, for example, would simply be exempt, but discretionary housing payments apply to other people, which may include disabled people and so on. If that is the way which the Minister wishes to go, that would be the clean and clear way to do it.
	If the alternative is to rely on discretionary housing payments, as the Minister keeps doing, then two or three things follow from that. First, that depends on the initiative of the family to go in for, effectively, a local means-testing regime. What we know at the moment, and the Minister will know this as well as anybody in this House, is that what happens with a means-testing regime is that more than a third of pensioners, for example, who are eligible for means-tested
	benefits do not apply and therefore do not get them. We know that many families who are entitled to council tax benefit—again, it is something like 40%—do not apply and do not get it. He is dependent on the ability of that family to touch resources to which that family may have no access. That money therefore does not get drawn upon and, as a result, that family goes short and hungry.
	Secondly, if you are relying effectively on the means-testing principle, you are relying on the insecurity of the local authority. I can tell the Minister why that money is not being spent. Something like 18 or so months ago, my own local authority, Norwich, ran out of its discretionary housing payment money by November. The Minister is very fond of quoting at me on the Floor of this Chamber—he has now done so twice—what has happened in Norwich. After November, other families in distress who needed the support could not access any more money because it had gone.
	As a result, local authorities across the country are trying to calibrate need, knowing that demand fluctuates in the course of the year, particularly after Christmas when the energy bills go up and the debts begin to fall in. That is why so many local authorities are being extremely cautious and careful about how they spend that discretionary money. It is not that they wish to withhold it, but they are terrified of being in a situation where so many of them have been in the past.
	I know that the Minister has fought for additional moneys. Every time that he fights for additional moneys, at the end of the day it will not make a penny of savings on this whole damned policy. It is a lousy policy. By the time he has got to £180 million, taking into account arrears, voids, administrative costs, eviction costs and the costs of those who go into the private rented sector, which increases their HB, he will find that there will be no savings left but he will have put hundreds of thousands of families—two-thirds of them disabled and about a third to a quarter of them with children—through the stress and insecurity which the noble Lord, Lord Martin, has just described to us from the Cross Benches.
	The Minister has a choice. He can either go back and change the housing benefit regulations following this amendment, so that children are taken out of its application, or he can rely on his principle of means testing, knowing that it has failed repeatedly. We have a Pensions Bill at the moment which is taking means testing out of the system because we know of its inadequacy. The Minister is now importing that back into the relief of children in poverty, which he does not need to do. I hope very much that he will listen today to the powerful speeches made on behalf of children because his policy is a cul-de-sac. It is a dead end and the sooner that it is abandoned, frankly, the better.

Lord Freud: My Lords, as one would expect, this has been an interesting debate with some impassioned and important contributions, which I welcome. Let me start by reminding the House of the fiscal environment that led to this measure’s introduction. In the final year of the previous Government, borrowing had risen to £150 billion. In
	cash terms, over the previous 10 years, expenditure on housing benefit had nearly doubled to £24 billion. Left unreformed, annual expenditure on housing benefit would have exceeded £26 billion per year by the end of this Parliament. Nearly four years on, the range of economic indicators are showing that our policies are working and have led to the number of workless households, the number of lone-parent workless households and the number of children in workless households all being the lowest since comparable records began in 1996.
	I will not spend a huge amount of time responding to the policy issues raised because we have already spent a lot of time in this House dealing with the policy as a whole. I want to deal with the issues raised by the nature and form of this particular amendment.
	The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2006 are secondary legislation, which contain detailed provisions that set out how local authorities should administer housing benefit. It is very unusual to seek to amend secondary legislation through primary legislation in this way. The amendment itself is imprecise and ambiguous, unlike the rest of Regulation B13. For example, under proposed new paragraph (5A) it is unclear what “restriction to one bedroom” or the concept of,
	“in the interests of the welfare of a child”,
	means in this context. Because of this, the amendment may have unintended consequences that go far beyond those desired by the noble Baroness.
	The effect of the amendment is potentially to allow local authorities to determine that the removal of the spare room subsidy does not apply where the household contains children, as it is not in the interests of their welfare. So this amendment is likely to add around £160 million a year to the housing benefit bill, reducing the savings from the policy to around £330 million a year. It would extend only to the social sector and so reintroduce the inequity in treatment between housing benefit claimants that we have sought to remove with the implementation of this change. Applying the spirit of the amendment to the local housing allowance to re-establish fairness is likely to more than double the cost of making this amendment to around £460 million a year. This amendment does not deliver the intended outcome. If accepted, we do not intend to amend it and it will be sent to the other place in its current defective state.
	It may be helpful if I remind noble Lords that we have already taken account of the interests and welfare of children in developing this policy. In March, we amended the regulations to allow an additional bedroom for foster and kinship carers. We have also made £5 million of discretionary housing payment funding available specifically for foster carers who require further additional rooms to allow them to foster two or more children, including groups of siblings. The discretionary housing payment data for the first six months indicate that foster carers are applying for and receiving payments, as intended. In March, we also issued guidance to local authorities indicating that they should allow an additional bedroom for disabled children who would ordinarily be expected to share a room but are unable to do so because of their disability. This was put into a
	regulatory framework in October. We have provided £180 million of discretionary housing payment funding for this year, and £165 million for next year, to enable local authorities to support the most vulnerable families affected by the reforms. This funding is already meeting the need that the noble Baroness seeks to address through this amendment.
	Perhaps I might pick up on two of the vital points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the costs and benefits for children who go into residential care as a result of the removal of the spare room subsidy. We have not looked at this specifically. The independent evaluation of the policy will look at the effects on families. We are not currently aware of any evidence to support the assumption that this would be an outcome of the policy.
	Picking up the example that the noble Baroness raised about Mary Jane and focusing on the uncertainty that that family had with that poor girl, I am aware that some local authorities, following the introduction of the policy, have understandably taken a very cautious approach to awarding discretionary housing payments, as they assess the level of need in their area. I have instructed my officials to amend the guidance to local authorities to encourage them to make longer-term awards where the circumstances are unlikely to change. The revised guidance is being prepared and will be shared with the local authority associations in draft before being issued for the start of the financial year.
	At this stage, we have not seen anything to suggest that this policy is having a detrimental impact on the welfare of children living in affected households. We are closely monitoring the effects of the policy and have commissioned an independent two-year evaluation which—among other things—will look at the effects on families. The interim findings are due to be published in spring this year.
	I hope I have been clear. I have already reflected on the noble Baronesses’ amendment. I cannot undertake to reflect further between now and Third Reading. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she should do so now.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I very much thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I also thank the Minister. I welcome him to this Bill for, I think, the first time. Some of us are long veterans of this Bill. We have been debating it since last June. Our focus has, perhaps, been very different from the values and priorities that the Minister has been enunciating this evening. We have been very much focused on the child welfare issues and have seen those as a priority in the progress of the Bill. We have reached quite a lot of cross-party and cross-Chamber consensus on all of that.
	Once again the Minister put great emphasis on the discretionary housing payment scheme. The fact is, in ways that were never foreseen when the original bedroom tax was introduced, it has already had to be increased and increased. This very much demonstrates that the policy, as originally planned and thought out, was not working and is still not working. It is making the evaluation of the costs very difficult. Indeed, the savings that were originally envisaged are now not being met. The whole policy is being turned on its head.
	In all the calculations that I have heard the Minister cite, he does not take into account some of the extra costs. Noble Lords around the Chamber have given us examples, including the whole issue of managing evictions, debt, arrears, the extra costs to local authorities of going back to people to try to collect those debts and arrears, and the more ill defined, but nevertheless very much present, extra social problems that arise from some of these issues.
	I am very pleased to hear that there will be an evaluation but, in the mean time, we are trying to deal with some of the problems that exist now. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who said that some of the discretionary fund was not always being used, that, for that very reason, the discretionary fund is not always the answer to those families. It is quite traumatic to go through that means-testing process. There is also an administrative on-cost for the local authorities that are trying to administer it. This is a murky area. It is not surprising that money in and money out are not always working effectively with the administration of that scheme.
	Meanwhile, we have to respect the fact that the Tory-led Local Government Association is saying that there is a problem here and that other budgets are having to be raided to cope with the surge of applications. It is not me who is saying that; it is the Local Government Association. The chair of the Local Government Association’s finance panel says:
	“This will have a significant impact on local government budgets, which are already stretched to breaking point by the deepest cuts in the public sector”.
	Again, those are not my words; they come from the chair of the LGA finance committee.
	However, this is not about the funds. It is about child welfare and about localism—a word that this Government do not seem to use very much any more. It is also about trust. Our amendment would trust local authorities to manage their housing stock and the vulnerable families within them most effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Martin, began to illustrate that. The housing stock and the experience of people living in Glasgow are very different from that of people living in the Welsh valleys, London and other urban areas. It is very difficult for local authorities to operate a blanket scheme when the housing stock, the availability of alternative stock and so on are so different. We are trying to build in extra flexibility to enable local authorities to respond to the real needs of the families and children in their locality.
	At the moment, those local authorities are trying to manage the sometimes perverse impact of that national policy on their local families. For example, they have to move families whose homes have been adapted to smaller homes, which in turn will need to be adapted all over again; or push families into the more expensive private rented sector as those smaller properties are not available, leaving behind sometimes larger properties that nobody wants to live in, which then remain empty. These are perverse events that were not foreseen but are now happening on the ground.
	Ultimately, it comes back to what is in the best interests of the child. I know, from my experience as a trustee of Shelter for many years, that enforced moves and disruption can have a devastating effect on children’s health and their schooling, particularly if they are suffering from other complex problems. We have talked a little about disability, but it is not just about disability. There can be complex family problems, personal problems, things to do with special educational needs and services that they need in the locality. We have debated these on other occasions. There could be all sorts of other local services that they rely on to get by. We are in danger of cutting off those people with those problems by expecting them to move unnecessarily.
	We have united across the House throughout the Bill on the need to put children’s welfare first. This is a very simple amendment that follows that logic through. It would enable local authorities to ensure that they too abide by that principle in implementing the rules of the bedroom tax. If the Minister did not like our drafting, it was open to him to come back with an alternative, but he has made it clear that he is not prepared to do so. On that basis, I have not been convinced by the Minister on this issue. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

Division on Amendment 57BC
	Contents 154; Not-Contents 185.
	Amendment 57BC disagreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.29 pm.

Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Relevant Document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Motion to Regret
	 Moved by Lord Pannick
	That this House regrets that the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 restrict the availability of legal aid, advice and assistance in prison law cases (SI 2013/2790).

Lord Pannick: My Lords, another week, another set of legal aid regulations to regret. These regulations will severely limit the availability of legal aid advice and assistance in prison law. I shall mention four examples of issues for which legal aid advice and assistance will no longer be available by reason of these regulations. The first is Parole Board proceedings for indeterminate sentence prisoners—ISPs—where the Secretary of State refers the case before the expiry of the minimum term for advice on a move for the prisoner to open conditions, and also where an ISP is removed from open conditions and the Minister seeks advice from the Parole Board on a return to an open prison. This will no longer be covered. The Parole Board itself said in its written evidence to an inquiry on this subject by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that because most prisoners require a period in open conditions before the Parole Board can be satisfied that they are safe to release:
	“There is in consequence, a great deal at stake for prisoners at these reviews”.
	The need for high standards to be applied at such hearings, in the interests of the prisoner and in the public interest, is obvious, and because of the impossibility of prisoners representing themselves effectively at such hearings and problems such as how to manage a prisoner cross-examining a professional witness giving evidence about the prisoner’s conduct in prison, the Parole Board told the Joint Committee in its written evidence that it believed the proposal to remove legal aid,
	“is very likely to impede our attempts to deal with cases fairly, promptly and effectively”.
	It is very surprising that the Secretary of State should have proceeded with the changes despite the concerns expressed by the Parole Board.
	The second example of decisions which will be excluded from legal aid is decisions to place or keep a prisoner in Category A—that is, prisoners assessed to be a high security risk—which of course affects prison conditions. A third excluded category is the allocation of places in mother and baby units. Vulnerable women will be denied access to legal advice on whether they should be separated from their babies. A fourth example is decisions on removal from association—that is, segregation decisions. One could give many more examples.
	What are the justifications offered by the Secretary of State for denying legal advice and assistance in such important matters, even if all other eligibility criteria are satisfied? The main answer given by Mr Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, in his oral evidence to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee on 3 July 2013 is that the difference between him and his critics was “ideological”—his word. Indeed, he used that word three times in as many minutes in
	response to questions on this matter. The report of the evidence is published as HC 91. Mr Grayling told the Justice Committee:
	“I do not believe that prisoners in jail should have the right to access legal aid to debate which prison they are put in”.
	He went on to say that they should not have the right to legal aid to raise other questions about their treatment, with limited exceptions.
	This is to reverse 35 years of progress in the approach adopted by the legal system to the treatment of prisoners. The modern era of prison law began in 1978 when the Court of Appeal required fair disciplinary proceedings for those alleged to be involved in the Hull prison riots. Since that decision, our courts have repeatedly made it clear that administrative decisions in prison must comply with basic standards of legality, procedural fairness and rationality.
	The application of legal standards to decision-making within prisons has immeasurably improved the quality of those decisions and ensured greater transparency and accountability. No one, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Justice, could doubt the public benefits in enabling prisoners to hold prison authorities to basic standards of legality and fairness or the indispensable contribution which has been made in this respect by legal aid. That a Secretary of State, and indeed a Secretary of State for Justice, should now, for so-called ideological reasons, wish to reverse such developments is very much a matter for regret.
	Mr Grayling’s second point is that legal aid is not needed because the internal prison complaints system and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will provide redress where appropriate. Without legal assistance a prisoner is simply not going to be able to make his or her points effectively and speedily by reference to the applicable legal requirements. Unhappily, many prisoners lack basic skills of literacy or suffer from other problems which impede their ability to present an effective grievance. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Mr Nick Hardwick CBE, echoed these concerns in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as recorded in paragraph 174 of the Committee’s seventh report.
	As the Law Society has pointed out in its helpful briefing on this Motion, at present many complaints are simply, effectively and speedily resolved by a solicitor’s letter setting out the legal position to the person taking the decision. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman can only make recommendations and provides a much slower method of seeking redress than a solicitor’s letter. The ombudsman, Mr Nigel Newcomen CBE, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that he was concerned about the Government’s proposals, in particular because his office was unable to cope with the expected increase in workload.
	These regulations will not even save public money. The cost of maintaining legal aid in ISP cases before the Parole Board, for example, is minimal, and the cost of ISPs remaining unjustifiably in closed conditions when they could safely be allowed to move to open conditions is high. The Howard League for Penal Reform has pointed out that the Ministry of Justice has put the cost of dealing with each complaint to the
	ombudsman at £830, which is more than three times the £220 fixed fee for a solicitor doing this work under the legal aid arrangements.
	In the Supreme Court last April, in the case of Osborn v the Parole Board, reported in volume 3 of the 2013 Weekly Law Reports page 1020, paragraph 72, Lord Reed stated for the court that,
	“procedures which involve an immediate cost but contribute to better decision-making are in reality less costly than they may appear”.
	I suggest that the Minister conveys the suggestion to the Secretary of State for Justice that the words of wisdom of Lord Reed should be displayed on Mr Grayling’s desk in very large letters.
	These regulations will do enormous damage to the rule of law in prisons and there is no justification for them. I beg to move.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I echo everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I, too, regret that the Government are taking this course and regret profoundly what was said by the Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Grayling, in describing the differences between those who supported the maintenance of legal aid and those who were agin it. It is as though it is not enough to go to prison and lose your liberty, and experience the deprivations that we know imprisonment means, so we are looking for other ways to punish.
	I will speak specifically about women. As we in this House all know, women in prison are very largely those who have experienced abuse or domestic violence. They are often in prison because of serious social problems, they have mental health problems, and often have problems of addiction. The panoply of problems that they have do not make them people who will be well able to represent themselves in trying to get their rights in prison.
	I will mention the issue of mother and baby units. In the past I have been involved in such cases, where a woman seeks to prepare for an application to have her baby remain with her, and has to secure supportive evidence, expert reports, and so on. It is impossible for a woman to do that without the help of a solicitor. Representations have to be made in relation to any refusal to offer a woman a place in a mother and baby unit, and I can assure noble Lords that that is sometimes done—and not done—for the best of reasons.
	Women sometimes make applications for temporary release when something disastrous is happening at home with other children; they seek a temporary licence so that they can spend time at home. Many female prisoners are their children’s primary carer. We know that 55% of women in prison have a child under 16 and wish to make use of that release on temporary licence when they have emergencies at home. I know from experience that the application of the release on temporary licence policy is frequently misapplied by prisons, and women who are eligible are incorrectly refused. Legal help is vital to them for making their application, making representations, drawing on supportive evidence, and so on, but it is no longer available.
	Disabled prisoners often have real problems about the suitability of their accommodation or other services they need, and need legal help to acquire them. Mentally ill prisoners do not get legal help to deal with many of the attendant matters that go along with convincing the authorities of the seriousness of their problems, whether that is on the depressive scale or as regards behaviours that clearly show disturbance, but which often bring them into dispute with the authorities in the prison. There are often arguments about the capacity of such women. They present with difficult and challenging behaviour which is often met with a strong disciplinary response from the prison so that they are awarded extra days as punishments, when in fact mental health is the problem. As extended prisoners, women often have the date of release set further and further away because of their behaviour, but that behaviour is due to their mental ill health.
	In those sorts of cases you need to have the representation of someone who is legally qualified to help take the appropriate course and find the appropriate expertise to support applications. The Government’s response is that prisoners should use the internal complaints procedures—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described the inadequacy of that. The process of appealing to the ombudsman is often slow and does not give the remedy that is sought. Add to all that the poor educational attainment of most women in prison and the situation is hopeless.
	Before this debate a Member of this House said to me, “Are you speaking in the legal aid debate?”, to which I replied, “Yes”. He said, “You know it’s hopeless”. My response to that was that it may be hopeless, but I hope that by having this debate some members of the Government will feel shame. I am speaking of the most vulnerable today. I hope that a feeling of shame will enter into discussions among the Government and between the coalition partners about the impact of this on the lives of some of the most fragile people in our society.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and both of us took part in the evidence session with the right honourable Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. That was just at the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who has the misfortune to have to reply to this debate, was no longer able to be with us because he had been told that he was about to become a Minister. Therefore tonight we will have an excellent example of the poacher who has now turned gamekeeper, as it were, for Her Majesty’s Government. I will make one point that I put to Mr Grayling, which I do not think he answered in a very satisfactory way.
	If the Government stick to their regulations, as they will, the consequence will be that more cases will go to Strasbourg for want of effective domestic remedies in this country. That is not something we should want; it is much better that effective remedies are provided in this country. Why do I say that? I have the cases of Sidney Golder and Reuben Silver in mind. Sidney Golder, many years ago, was a prisoner who thought
	that he had been defamed by a member of the Prison Service, and he wanted to go to a solicitor to see whether he could sue for libel. The Home Office said, “Sorry—you can’t go to a solicitor while you’re a prisoner”, so Mr Golder had to go to Strasbourg. The Strasbourg court said, years and years ago, “There must be an effective domestic remedy. Access to justice is a fundamental right, and prisoners are entitled to that right”. Therefore Golder led to reform of the prison rules, or was meant to do so. I was working in the Home Office with Roy Jenkins on the subject, and I am sorry to say that Home Office officials did not do as they were instructed, so that led to the case of Mr Silver.
	Reuben Silver was an Orthodox Jew, and he wanted to know whether the food he was receiving in prison was kosher. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Jewish Chronicle marked “not for publication”. It was stopped on the ground that you must not write to the press. He also wrote to the Chief Rabbi, but was prevented from sending that letter on the ground that he had not known the Chief Rabbi before he became a prisoner, under the rule that said that you had to know the person beforehand. Therefore Mr Silver was one of my seven prisoner clients who went to the Strasbourg court complaining of the absence of a domestic remedy. The Strasbourg court had no difficulty in finding that the prison ombudsman could not provide and had not provided an effective remedy, and the same would be true today.
	Those cases are not just routine internal disciplinary matters. I lost another case called Boyle and Rice in which they complained about being moved from one place to another and not having artwork, and so on. That is the kind of case which Mr Grayling is perfectly right to say should be dealt with by the ombudsman system. However, there are other, grosser, cases where that is not so. When I put this to Mr Grayling in evidence his reply was, “Well, I’m sure that in that sort of case you can find barristers who do no-win, no-fee cases”. That is no answer; for a prisoner to have to find such a barrister and to negotiate with the clerk and all the rest of it is patently absurd. One overwhelming reason to regret what has happened is that it will lead inevitably to more cases going to Strasbourg, which is not in the interests of anybody.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I suppose that one should be grateful for small mercies and welcome what is provided for in Regulation 4(2) and (3): advice and assistance for issues relating to the release by the Secretary of State or for consideration for release by the Parole Board, and for proceedings that involve the determination of a criminal charge. However, they are very small mercies: these provisions were, of course, unavoidable. They are essential to protect against the risk of challenge by prisoners whose basic rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the convention were being infringed.
	The point is this: there are very real grounds for concern as to what is being left out, a list of which is set out in paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. For reasons of time, I will not go over the details, but one is bound to ask how robust the
	system of complaints is on which there is so much emphasis and to draw attention—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has done—to the effect of the absence of legal advice, which always focuses the issue more directly and saves money by directing attention to where the problem really lies.
	The other major gap is that to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has drawn attention; namely, the position of the vulnerable, of whom there are so many, both male and female, in prisons and in young offender institutions too—for example, those with language or learning difficulties. I am struck by one of the provisions in paragraph 9.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which tells us that a note has been issued for distribution to prisoners to explain the changes to the system—but what provision is being made for those who cannot read or who do not speak English? Can we really be confident that steps are being taken to deal with their needs and give them the advice they need?
	At the heart of this is something else, which, I suggest, is profoundly worrying: the increasing tendency to treat prisoners as some kind of an underclass. They are to be regarded as having surrendered their right, when they go into custody, to be treated like everyone else, except to the extent necessary to serve their sentence. We are all familiar with the debate about prisoner voting; but the effect of denying them the vote is really quite trivial when compared with what these changes will mean for many who are in a position that puts them at such an obvious disadvantage when compared with everyone else, having been locked up by the state.
	Paragraph 7.4 of the memorandum states that the amendments aim to target limited public resources at the cases that really justify it. So far so good; but then there are the words,
	“to ensure that the public can have confidence in the scheme”.
	Those really are weasel words. What is the basis for that claim? Who are the public? What do they know about the effect of all these provisions on prison law? What about the prisoners, their wives, parents or children? What about the many organisations and individuals who really do care about the mistreatment of prisoners or their rehabilitation?
	Some years ago Justice Breyer of the US Supreme Court observed in a lecture in London that it is not the job of judges to be popular. That is why we have judges who are not elected. If you want to be popular, you have to win votes: you must appeal to the majority. Of course, one way of doing that is to devalue the rights of the minority. When it comes to the use of resources, there is a temptation: they can be diminished or left to one side because the majority can be relied upon not to care about them and not to object. That is all about winning the confidence of the majority, which is what this sentence really refers to. It is not difficult to imagine what, in the wrong hands, this may eventually lead to. The line of thinking, therefore—the political philosophy that seems to underlie these proposals—is perhaps even more worrying than all the details which, in themselves, are so troubling.
	I join others in expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for bringing this Motion before the House.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I, too, regret very much these legal aid regulations in relation to prisons. The amount concerned is apparently about £4 million. The cost of each lawyer to give advice or representation is a fixed fee of £220. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—who, in my view, has done the House a great favour by bringing this issue before noble Lords—has already said, that is achieved very often by a letter that resolves the problem.
	I received a very interesting and useful e-mail from a committee member of the Young Legal Aid Lawyers, which is a group of students, lawyers and barristers committed to practising areas of law traditionally funded by legal aid, which includes prison law. They raised three points that I want to make to the House, which identify three vulnerable groups. They have been referred to already, so I hope that the House will forgive me for referring to them again.
	One group of young people—they are children—have advocates from Barnardo’s, which is a step forward. As far as I know, however, they are not lawyers and do not provide that specialised help which, for instance, is needed in the resettlement of young people who come out of secure accommodation or youth prison. Those young lawyers are of course experts in dealing with these problems.
	The second group is mothers and babies. The issue of mothers and babies has been raised already, but let me take a different point. As a former family judge, it is the baby that I worry about. There is no one to speak for the baby; he or she is removed from the mother, with all the emotional harm that is done to a baby in those circumstances, even if that mother and baby are reunited at a later stage. In that instance, a lawyer can help to organise it so that the mother and baby remain together.
	The third group that has already been referred to is that of vulnerable adults. I will make two points. First, in our prisons there is a very high percentage of people with mental health problems. Some have single mental health problems; many have multiple problems. There is also no shortage of people without education and with learning disabilities. How on earth are they to cope with putting forward whatever is the issue that needs to be put forward if they do not have someone to help them? I doubt very much whether the internal arrangements or even the ombudsman will meet the specialised help which, for a very minor cost to the public, these lawyers can give. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests, it is ideological, the money does not matter; but I suspect that for the rest of the Government money matters very much. It is not very much money and it saves a great deal. Therefore I urge not just the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, but the Government generally, to rethink the balance of saving money and the damage caused by taking away this facility and the lack of appropriate legal advice and representation that to me, as a former judge, is a denial of access to justice.

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood: My Lords, I, too, rise to support this Motion and also, in part, to atone for my own part as Treasury Counsel 30 years or more ago, when I did all that I could to obstruct the recognition of prisoners’ rights—sometimes successfully in the short term, although generally not in the longer term. Preparing for the debate tonight has involved me in a wander down memory lane. In 1981, in a case called Payne against the then chairman of the Parole Board, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal under Lord Denning that it was quite unnecessary to give prisoners any reasons whatever as to why their parole applications had been refused. In 1984, in a case called King, I persuaded the Court of Appeal that prison governors’ disciplinary proceedings were wholly immune from judicial review, lest their authority be undermined.
	I now look back on these forensic triumphs of yesteryear with some astonishment—and, indeed, each of them proved to be short lived. Nor, indeed, were all my attempts to obstruct and restrict prisoners’ rights successful. Anonymous reference has already been made this evening to the famous case of Raymond v Honey in 1982, in which I failed to persuade the House of Lords that prison governors were entitled to prevent a prisoner applying to the courts to commit them to prison for contempt. In 1983, in the Tarrant case—another case that features in the Joint Committee’s report—I failed to persuade the Divisional Court that prisoners should never have the right to legal representation before boards of visitors. Indeed, in a case that has already been mentioned this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—Silver v the United Kingdom—which was aptly named, considering it followed on from the case of Golder v United Kingdom, I failed to persuade the Strasbourg court that the prison authorities were entitled to read every letter that a prisoner sent out, even those sent to his solicitors. Enough of reminiscences—but I hope that they at least indicate that I have some experience and understanding of the importance of prison law in prisoners’ lives.
	Others in the debate have focused—and, no doubt, will continue to focus—on a number of detailed objections to the regulations, and have pointed to particular situations where the withdrawal of legal aid will be especially harmful and problematic. However, I wish to make a single, substantial point, which to my mind is a point of overarching importance and which has already been touched on by others. By these regulations, legal aid will cease to be available for a number of cases which otherwise would have passed all the relevant merits and qualifying tests and would have been funded. That must be so, because otherwise there can be no point in the regulations.
	It follows that these cases are no longer to be funded for the very reason that those who wish to bring them are prisoners. It is no answer to say that there are other complaints procedures available to them in prison. To the extent that these are, indeed, sufficient, a legal challenge would in any event be impermissible because judicial review is always regarded as a remedy of last resort. So it is by virtue only of
	their status as prisoners—an unpopular group and thus perhaps regarded as a soft and popular target for cuts—that prisoners will have fewer rights to funding and so less access to justice than the population at large. And yet—it is this that I regard as the key point which makes the point one of overarching importance, as I have called it—prisoners, as members of a closed community uniquely subject to the exercise of highly coercive powers, far from having fewer rights of recourse to independent courts than most of us, should, rather, have at the very least equal access to justice.
	Just yesterday, the Independent newspaper contained an article headed:
	“Medomsley young offenders centre: over 140 alleged victims of abuse have come forward”.
	The article detailed all these cases of alleged sexual or physical abuse from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s. I have no wish to comment on the allegations, or, indeed, to consider how the regulations in question here could bite in that situation. However, the article highlights—if, indeed, highlighting is required—just how vulnerable prisoners are, particularly young prisoners, and therefore how essential it is that they should have full and proper access to justice rather than be discriminated against as prisoners under the legal aid scheme. These are mischievous and misguided regulations, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right to regret them.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, given the current clamour for repentance in some quarters, it is a real pleasure to follow a sinner who hath repented. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, makes an extremely powerful point in reminding us that these are cases in which the merits test has been passed. Therefore, the Government are deliberately excluding from access to litigation people who have been advised that they have merit in their case. That is a matter of real concern.
	I, too, applaud the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving this Motion of Regret—the third Motion of Regret, or similar, in a run of these legal aid regulations. This fact, in my view, should cause Ministers and the Government Front Bench real concern. There is more or less united opposition to these regulations among the informed. I would have thought that that evidence was as good as one could wish for.
	I also want to pick up a point on mental health made by the noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience of the judiciary. It is often a matter of pure chance whether a child or adult with a serious multiple mental health history ends up in prison or in hospital. It may depend on where they were standing when a florid episode took place, whether there was a sympathetic or an unsympathetic police officer present or whether or not their family was there to protect them. It is purely because of a small event that one person may now be in a hospital, with all the care that a hospital provides, and the capacity to obtain legal aid for important litigation that may establish the course of the rest of their lives, and another may be in prison, where, apparently, they are to be deprived of access to that litigation. That seems to me profoundly unjust.
	The third and final point I will mention—trying not to take up too much of your Lordships’ time this evening—relates to children and young people and the
	work of the Howard League for Penal Reform, of which I was president but am no longer. On 13 December last, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that it was “disappointed” that the Government had pursued the removal of matters from legal aid relating to young people and, in particular, resettlement cases. The committee said:
	“The issues concerning young people may involve matters of housing law, social care law and public law of such complexity that they require access to legal advice and assistance in order to investigate and formulate their case”.
	There are, of course, some very good lawyers in this House, but there is not a lawyer in this House who would not be challenged by some of these cases. The Howard League has a legal team that has helped literally hundreds of children make fresh starts and secure long-term support on statutory funding. The result has often been to allow them to be released safely, having served the shortest appropriate time in prison. They have often been able to move on not just to lives which are free of crime but to lives which are positive in a much broader sense.
	In turn, this has led not only to justice on their part but has saved the taxpayer a huge amount of money. It is extremely expensive keeping young people locked up. Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister that I doubt very much that any robust cost-benefit analysis has been done on removing legal aid from children in custody rather than allowing them the legal aid which the expert legal team at the Howard League—and, of course, elsewhere—has utilised to bring benefit to those children’s lives.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the statements that have been made by so many of your Lordships universally condemning these regulations and identifying the specifics of why they are wrong in principle and wrong in fact.
	I have not been someone who has objected to any legal aid cut. I have been concerned about some but, as a member of a Government who themselves had to look at legal aid issues, that was not the concern. However, what particularly concerns me about these regulations is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made early in his contribution when he referred to the reasons given by the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, for making this change—said to be ideological.
	While there may be that ideology so far as the Lord Chancellor is concerned, noble and learned Lords have already made it plain why it is legally wrong: because prisoners have rights. Therefore, if the justification is that, ideologically, they should not have rights, he is saying that they should be in the same position as the people in the black holes of Guantanamo.
	I am still shocked by the piece that the Lord Chancellor wrote in the Daily Mail on 11 September 2013, in which he described judicial review, not once but twice, as,
	“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners”.
	That is completely untrue, of course. I do not think that the Daily Mail would be regarded as a left-wing campaigner, yet it used judicial review to challenge the Leveson inquiry. Much as I admire it, I do not think
	that the Countryside Alliance, when it brought a judicial review against hunting, would have regarded itself as a left-wing campaigner.
	It is deeply worrying that that is the ideology that underlies these changes. It would be deeply worrying if it came from anybody, but coming from a Lord Chancellor—a Secretary of State for Justice—it is a matter of the gravest regret, which is why I am very happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is wrong for these reasons. It is wrong because legal aid is about justice, not about ideology. It should be about ensuring that people can vindicate their rights where properly those rights deserve to be vindicated. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor—the Secretary of State—is ideologically unsound and also legally wrong.
	This measure is, I regret to say, shabby, and a political and populist move which does no credit at all to a Government. Equally, it does no good, as noble and learned Lords and noble Lords have pointed out, in terms of cutting the budget. I very much hope that the noble Lord—and I, for one, welcome him to his place on the ministerial Bench—will do his best to make sure that that point is driven home within the Ministry of Justice and that the Secretary of State recognises eventually that this sort of move, which he regards as ideological, is in fact utterly to be regretted.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, my memory of the gradual application of the rule of law in prisons also goes back a long way—as far back as that of my repentant noble and learned friend, whom I have the great honour to be sitting next to and of whom my opinion has warmed considerably as the years have gone by.
	I recollect the days when prisoners were found guilty of disciplinary offences and sentenced to lose many days of remission without being heard or allowed to defend themselves. I remember a riot at Wormwood Scrubs prison in which 54 prisoners and 11 prison officers were injured. It was hushed up. The full facts emerged after two and a half years and no one was ever held to account. I am sure that there would be no support in 2014 for the rule of law not being maintained in prisons. The arrival of lawfulness improved immeasurably the working conditions of staff, the treatment of prisoners and the safety of the environment in which they both lived. My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf was right to say in his report on the Strangeways riot in 1991 that,
	“the system of justice which has put a person in prison cannot end at the prison doors”.
	Therefore, within this context, since this is a Motion of Regret, I regret very much that the framework of lawfulness in which prisons operate is to be reduced. I understand the argument about cost, but these measures will certainly save no money at all, and they will shrink one of the elements that keep prisons fairly safe and fairly manageable—that is, the provision of access to a remedy when a decision seems arbitrary and unjust.
	Perhaps I may mention one specific situation so that it may be on the record. I refer to prisoners who are held in extreme conditions, such as in the case quoted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons when he gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human
	Rights. It concerned a woman with severe mental health problems in Bronzefield prison who was held for five years in conditions that amounted, in his view, to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In future, such a woman seems very unlikely to be able to get legal aid to challenge her conditions and her placement. Women who have their babies taken away have already been mentioned, and I endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.
	I end by endorsing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the excellent work done by the Howard League and the Prisoners’ Advice Service. Neither of those specialist legal aid prison law firms will be able to continue under these arrangements, and that, too, is a matter for profound regret.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Pannick on bringing his regret Motion before this House. I do not dissent in any way from what he said. He has outlined why this House should regret the restrictions being imposed on legal aid, advice and assistance in prison law cases with his usual clarity and skill. I want to focus instead on the Government’s justification for those restrictions, which I believe to be deeply flawed. I have to admit to serious alarm when I saw that the justification was the internal prisons complaints system, about which, when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I had frequent cause to complain. I was equally alarmed when I saw that the tough Mr Grayling had said in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
	“I struggle personally to believe that it is sensible to have a system where we have prisoners able to access the courts, and access public funds, to argue that they should be detained in a different prison”,
	to which the Joint Committee responded:
	“What is strikingly strange about the Lord Chancellor’s comments about where legal aid will be allowed is that he has … ignored where common-law standards of fairness apply”.
	It also said:
	“We have not seen any evidence to suggest that legal aid is being abused to enable prisoners to complain about what prison they are put in”—
	in other words, both drawing attention to his ignorance of the facts and suggesting that he was on a collision course with Winston Churchill’s conviction that the way in which it treats its crime and criminals is the true test of the civilisation of any country. Ideology appears to dictate his policy-making, rather than reality.
	Mr Justice May, when recommending the reformation of the Inspectorate of Prisons after a break of 102 years, following widespread unease about the efficacy of the self-regulation that had been introduced by the first Prison Commissioner in 1877, recommended that the chief inspector be given statutory responsibility for the inspection of efficiency, propriety and the investigation of grievances. In the event, the investigation of grievances was denied. However, when the first prisons ombudsman was appointed in 1994 following similar unease about the internal prisons complaints system, he was not given statutory responsibility for the investigation of grievances—something for which he and his successors have fought, unsuccessfully, ever since, and a fight which I warmly support.
	I was therefore interested to note that in his evidence to the Joint Committee, far from having the confidence in the complaints system held by the Lord Chancellor, my successor as chief inspector, Nick Hardwick, confirmed that,
	“prisoner confidence in a complaints system was crucial to the safety of a prison”.
	He added that,
	“two-thirds of people who have had a complaint dealt with through the existing system do not think it has been dealt with fairly”,
	and that,
	“about one in 10 say they have been prevented in some way from accessing the complaints system”.
	So much for advice and assistance that is equal to that being denied.
	Like my noble and learned friends Lord Brown and Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if there is one group of prisoners about whom I am particularly concerned in all this, it is young offenders. For a whole variety of reasons, including immaturity and lack of trust, they tend not to use the complaints system. When I was inspecting, what worried me was that prison staff tended to interpret this lack of use of the formal complaint system as meaning that all was well when the opposite was true.
	My final word to the Minister is that, in reflecting on all that has been said by noble Lords in regretting the proposed restrictions, he and the Secretary of State should reflect that this is not a stand-alone measure. Their restrictions come on top of a whole host of other cuts and deliberately tough sanctions against prisoners, and are resulting in mounting unrest. Prisoners are deprived of their liberty for a period by the courts following conviction for an offence but, in the civilised society about which Winston Churchill spoke, they are not deprived of justice. My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf observed that justice was a crucial ingredient of safety in a prison, which confirms that there is no place for ideologically imposed injustice in a civilised prison system.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I, too, bitterly regret the need for this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I feel enormous sympathy for him and bitterly regret that he will have the arduous burden of responding on behalf of the Government. To turn our minds back only a few years, if we had asked any lawyer worth their salt whether it would be likely that any Government, of whatever political complexion, would bring forward regulations such as these, I think that such a suggestion would have been met with incredulity.
	I totally endorse what has been said by every Member of the House who has spoken already, particularly the comments made in relation to children, women and the vulnerable. I emphasise the comments made recently by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the need to remember the backcloth against which these additional cuts must now be seen.
	I shall take a moment to concentrate on the plight of women. Noble Lords will know that legal aid in family matters has been removed almost in its entirety, except in cases of domestic violence. Even there we are hearing reports from solicitors all over the country
	that access to legal aid for those women and individuals who are victims has been severely constrained. Some solicitors say that the drop has been 96% in some areas and 94% in others, and that there has been a real diminution right across the board. We know that women in our prisons are overrepresented in terms of vulnerability. Certainly it was my experience when I was Minister of State with responsibility for the criminal justice system. I was told in 2004 by the governor of Holloway prison—I have no reason to believe that this has changed—that 89% of women in prison had a history of domestic violence or sexual abuse prior to having offended. We have a highly vulnerable group whose rights already are constrained outside the prison estate and are having them further constrained within it. Two-thirds of children in youth offending institutions come from those same domestic violence homes. We all know that those who graduated from the youth justice estate are overrepresented in the male estate. We are dealing with the most vulnerable in our community.
	I add my voice to those who have expressed a degree of shock that the Secretary of State for Justice feels able to phrase these issues in terms of ideology. I commend the Damascene-like conversion of the erstwhile Treasury devil for his change of mind and invite the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to ask the Lord Chancellor to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, as an exemplar of what can be done when one really wishes to change, and to say that, from the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, all of us expect more. I cannot but agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, when he says that these provisions are mischievous and misguided.

Lord Bach: My Lords, yet again this House appears united against the Government’s proposals for legal aid. Thanks are owed not just by those of us in the House but those outside, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving his regret Motion and doing so in so powerful a way. Those who followed him must rank as one of the most impressive lists of dramatis personae of legal luminaries it would be possible to bring together, and we have not heard from my noble friend Lord Beecham yet.
	I want to make a couple of fairly short points. At paragraph 161 on page 50 of the JCHR report, there is reference to reforms to the system of prison law that were carried out in July 2010. They were really the work of the previous Government. Indeed, they were from a time when I was privileged to be the Minister with responsibility for legal aid. What we did then was to make comparatively minor changes that we believed were appropriate. We implemented them and, dare I say, they appeared to work fairly satisfactorily. But now, yet again, our successors go much, much too far and take so much out of scope that the balance shifts. Instead of having a system that maintains the essential proposition that prisoners should have reasonable and proportionate access to legal advice and representation, we are now faced with a sort of brave new world where any legal rights prisoners enjoy are granted out of sufferance—the very bare minimum.
	The approach is not what is fair and consistent with our legal traditions but rather, “What can we as the Government, the state, get away with?”. There is almost
	a pride in not taking a balanced view based on judgment and legal reputation. In one of his examples, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke about categorisation. The Ministry of Justice has decided to remove funding for pre-tariff reviews. He explained much better than I can the value of pre-tariff reviews for prisoners.
	Recently, I spoke to a recently retired Parole Board member and a retired High Court judge who told me that not only are these reviews immensely significant in the course of a prisoner’s life but that there are huge advantages for the Parole Board and, thus, presumably for society, in having the best possible information about a prisoner so that the right judgment can be made. Such information is gained by the Parole Board having had the advice and representation before it that has been given to the prisoner. Can anything be more ridiculous than the decision to take pre-tariff reviews out of scope? As the JCHR report so rightly said:
	“Categorisation engages common law rights to liberty, as it can affect the likelihood of a prisoner being released. There are also clear cost implications of a prisoner remaining in too high a category, which may mean that the Lord Chancellor’s cost-saving rationale may not be satisfied. We recommend that the Government look again at these proposals, and give full consideration to the potential for increased costs, which may affect the justification for its policy”.
	Two newly appointed Ministers in the Ministry of Justice were on that JCHR, at least for a large part of its hearing into this matter, and we hope that both those Ministers will follow that paragraph and talk to their Secretary of State in those terms.
	The Government’s excessive zeal—their going over the top, if I may put it that way—on legal aid is already having harmful consequences. For example, the removal of legal aid from social welfare law is leading to the closure of advice centres. Only today, a round robin e-mail talked about the imminent closure of three law centres in London and one in a major city in the north of England, on top of what has already happened. That e-mail was headed “Glum”.
	Is this really what the Government intended when they forced the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act through Parliament? If it was, it does them no credit. They are gradually destroying a civilised system of access to justice—one that was far from perfect but which worked in practice and was, frankly, not very expensive. In its place is emerging a world where the poorest and those without any power, including of course prisoners under this particular regulation, have nowhere to go to get the legal advice that they deserve and need. It is fast becoming a record to be ashamed of.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am extremely honoured to be in this learned company and I will try not to take too much time because everything has been said.
	We have been here before. I spoke in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as did many other noble Lords. On that occasion, I mentioned the work of the CAB. But today, like others, I am much more concerned about the effect of these regulations on young people in difficulty, including asylum seekers in detention, unaccompanied minors and even young
	people released from prison and wishing to make a new life. These young people would normally benefit from professional legal advice at a critical stage in their lives when they are separated from their families or being made homeless at the moment of leaving prison. Specialised agencies such as the Howard League mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, have given hundreds of people not just hope but essential practical advice on restarting their lives. This kind of work, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, characterises fairness in our society. It is not charity.
	I notice that the Minister has been a member of the Select Committee looking at mental capacity, so he will be more aware than most of the special problems of the mentally ill already mentioned. Many of those people are in prison through no fault of their own. I said in the legal aid debate that those with mental health problems were especially vulnerable. There were no exceptions for children nor for prisoners accepted to have a disability. A detained child unable to identify legal issues will not have the financial resources, let alone the intellectual resources, to pay for lawyers or even to frame their complaint to the prison authority, as is suggested. That is a serious point that the Minister has to answer. It would be a serious personal crisis for young people.
	A case of a 12 year-old boy was mentioned to me by the Howard League. He was an unaccompanied minor who had been detained in a secure children’s home. He had behaved well, earned himself early release and had sought help with resettlement. The lawyer concerned approached social services but only then discovered through an interpreter that he had been wrongly detained in the first place and had to appeal against his sentence. None of this will happen if cases are not referred in the future and legal aid is unavailable.
	Last September, there were 1,789 immigration detainees spread across the UK in removal centres and short-term holding facilities simply waiting to be removed. Many are moved from place to place and I doubt if the Minister or anyone else can keep count of how many of them are young people. I heard from a Member of Parliament last week that one young detainee, originally from his constituency, had been moved eight times. Mental health problems loom large in these situations because no one knows when they can leave or even when they can receive a hearing. Detainees depend heavily on outside advice. This may be a subject for the Immigration Bill next month, but it is surely highly relevant to the present regulations. Is it fair to exact cuts that will impinge on young people in these conditions and restrict their lives even more than at present?
	It is true that the Joint Committee on Human Rights accepted that it was legitimate for the Government to introduce a residence test, as the Minister may mention, and to restrict the scope of prison law funding. But it strongly recommended that there should be more and broader exemptions from these proposals to make it less likely that they will lead to breaches of the fundamental right of effective access to justice.
	What is especially unfortunate, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned, is that young people in prison had been receiving much better attention over a long period. For example, the Minister will know that
	in 2002 there was a court ruling that the welfare and child protection duties in the Children Act apply to children in prison just as they do to children in the community.
	The amount and percentage of cuts has already been discussed. They are surely disproportionate. I shall lastly mention one piece of evidence given to the Select Committee last July. I was surprised to read that the Justice Secretary had changed his mind about equal shares in legal aid work. He told the committee he had been persuaded that competition among legal providers was more essential than advice shared equally. He said:
	“That is something that the market has said to me: ‘Actually, the principle of choice is one that we regard as more important’”,
	than equal shares. If the market is speaking in this way, many young people and their families are going to suffer from these regulations.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned the debate in this House last July. I looked back at that and reminded myself that the title of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was “Effect of Cuts in Legal Aid Funding on the Justice System of England and Wales”. I think that that was a very well chosen title because the effect of the cuts is not just on individuals but on our system of justice.
	I was not going to talk about whether this was a matter of ideology on the part of the Justice Secretary. I had a look at the transcript and am not sure that that was quite the exchange about ideological differences, but I am tempted to wonder whether that was an admission or a boast.
	I want to say very clearly—though noble and learned Lords, and noble Lords who are not technically learned, have put it much better than I can—that for those who are convicted and sentenced by the courts, the punishment is imprisonment. The punishment should not extend to the loss of rights, whether convention rights or at common law.
	A number of threads seem to run through the Government’s approach. The first is a reference to and reliance on judicial review. I do not need to comment on the paradox in that given the policy regarding judicial review. I was not aware of the Daily Mail article quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I do not think that I need to spend any time on saying how undesirable it is to rely on judicial review. But I will mention the skill that is needed, at what I shall describe as first instance, to ensure that the right points are raised and dealt with in order that there is a basis for an application for judicial review. I think that that is not a job for someone who is not trained.
	Another theme which I picked up from the JCHR report is that the Justice Secretary thinks that the number of cases affected will be very small. If that is so, I do not understand why the Government do not give in gracefully. We know about the cost pressures on the MoJ. We know that the Government want to focus public resources on cases with sufficient priority to justify the use of public money and to get value for money for the taxpayer. But I know that I am not alone in this Chamber in setting justice high in my priorities as a taxpayer.
	What seems to be a common theme in the responses to the Government from those who work in the sector is a mention of the “see-saw impact”—that is, cuts here meaning costs there. Concerns around mother and baby units and the cost of keeping a baby in care is one example, undermining the principles of rehabilitation and the costs associated with all that. We will all have seen and read particular cases. I shall mention one which I found very compelling—the story of a 17 year-old who was given a 36-month custodial sentence. He was studying for his A-levels at the time. With the work of solicitors, who engaged in both detailed representations and liaison with a clutch of agencies, he was granted release on temporary licence to attend college part-time and then home detention curfew, and so he lost only one year of education, not the further years which were in prospect.
	Of course, there is also the cost of the loss of expertise among solicitors. I have seen, and heard about tonight, a large number of points relating to costs rather than savings. We really have not got any better, have we, at joining up and reading across budgets? I have actually been defeated—my level of energy depleted—in trying to understand the savings projected as against the knock-on costs. I hope that when the Minister—who has everyone’s sympathy in this—replies he will be able to unpack this for the House.
	The third theme I picked up was the emphasis on the non-judicial complaints system. I do not see this as an either/or. There should be a good complaints system. That should then alleviate to some extent the necessity for lawyers to be involved. There should be an effective system that inspires confidence. However, there are limits to the system that we have—to the powers, to the remit, which does not extend to making recommendations to external agencies or investigating them. These concerns seem rightly to have been stressed.
	We have heard, although not tonight, about ambulance chasing—if that is the right term—by some solicitors in prison, soliciting work and planting the idea in prisoners’ minds that they have real claims. However, that should not mean that proper advice, assistance and representation is not available.
	I do not suppose that the MoJ has found much which it regarded as supportive or constructive in the responses to the proposed changes. The House has managed to cover quite a lot of ground, and I will end by citing a point made by the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges, which noted, according to the Howard League, that:
	“The practice of prison law is so unique; its impact on the most vulnerable within society so profound; and the potential savings suggested by these reforms so limited at best, and so obscure in any event, prison law should be removed altogether from the scope of the legal aid reforms”.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, it is once again necessary for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for putting down a Motion of Regret about a set of regulations on legal aid. I also express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully tonight about the regulations and the potential damage that they will do.
	I begin by citing three examples of successful cases for which legal aid was, but will no longer be, available. I am indebted to the Howard League for supplying the relevant information. The first was a mother and baby case of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. A Spanish mother, who spoke no English, was informed after sentence that her baby would be removed and placed into care because it was not known whether she would be allowed to remain with the child when she returned to Spain. Her lawyers ascertained that she would, and the decision was reversed.
	In the second case, a prisoner with severe learning disabilities could not do offending behaviour courses. Experts in the prison recommended he be transferred to hospital for treatment, but nothing happened until his lawyer commissioned an independent report and persuaded the authorities to transfer him to hospital. Such a sentence case will now be out of scope.
	In the third case, a 17 year-old suffering from ADHD and learning difficulties underwent psychiatric therapy in a secure training centre, but the local authority refused to respond to a request for a needs assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act until legal intervention by the Howard League. Resettlement cases of this kind will also be out of scope. I remind your Lordships that the cost of keeping such an offender in custody could be as much as £200,000 a year.
	Those are but a few sample cases. The regulations which are the subject of this regret Motion are merely the latest example of this Government’s repeated assaults on the legal aid system and access to justice, pushed through by a Lord Chancellor indifferent to their effects and unheeding of the warnings from the judiciary, practitioners, and charities and voluntary organisations. Time after time the criticisms of bodies such as the Justice Select Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights are brushed aside. Impact analyses are vestigial in many cases, and imperfect in most.
	Such is clearly the case with the proposals we are debating tonight. Not only are the measures deeply flawed but the process is tainted. Paragraph after paragraph of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report highlights these systemic failures. After their initial consultation, the Government abandoned proposals to exclude two areas from legal aid, namely where the Parole Board considers whether to order release and in relation to the calculation of sentence when the release date is in dispute. That is welcome, but as paragraph 154 of the report sets out, two new matters were excluded from legal aid—contrary to the express intention set out in the consultation that legal aid would continue to be available—namely, the areas of sentence planning and pre-tariff reviews. There was no subsequent consultation on these changes.
	At paragraph 163, the committee dismissed the Lord Chancellor’s assertion that legal aid was being abused by prisoners complaining about what prison they were confined in, or about prison conditions, saying, damningly and accurately,
	“legal aid is already unavailable for such claims”.
	At paragraph 168, it pointed up the hollowness of the Government’s claim that judicial review would be available given the restrictions being imposed on the number of cases firms might bring and the limitations of the exceptional funding regime. At paragraph 169, it asked the Government to consider the combined effect of the residence test and the exceptional funding criteria and invited them to explain,
	“how access to justice rights will be maintained where both policies are in operation”.
	What is the Government’s response to that very significant question?
	The Government airily dismissed the concerns on internal prison complaints but, as we have heard, the Chief Inspector of Prisons is quoted at paragraph 174 as finding the response “disappointing”. He emphasised the problems of prisoners with disabilities, especially mental health problems, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, warned that prisoner confidence in the complaints system was crucial to prison safety. As recent events have demonstrated, prison safety is a real concern. Similarly, at paragraph 174, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman voiced concerns, especially about his lack of statutory independence that the Lord Chancellor has promised to rectify. I must ask the Minister when the legislation, urgently pressed for by the committee at paragraph 177, will be enacted.
	At paragraph 181 the committee identified the need for public funding,
	“to prevent infringements of prisoners’ right of access to court arising in practice”.
	From paragraphs 182 to 188, it identified serious issues for prisoners with mental health problems, the vast majority exemplified by the chief inspector’s remarks in the case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, about segregation, in particular of women prisoners. In parenthesis, when I asked a question about women prisoners being held in segregation the reply that I received from the Ministry of Justice was that it was too costly to obtain the details of the numbers and length of time such women had been so confined. To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, agreed that the answer was ridiculous and procured the relevant information.
	At paragraph 188, the Joint Committee noted that since 2010 the majority of treatment cases were mental health cases and it was not satisfied that these prisoners would be able to use the complaints procedure effectively. It recommended that the LAA retain the ability to grant funding for these cases where the implications for access to justice are clear. Noble Lords will not need reminding that the majority of prisoners suffer from mental health disorders: 70% of one or more mental health disorders for adults, 90% for young offenders. Again, what is the Government’s response to the case of prisoners suffering from these disorders? In relation to mother and baby cases, of which there are mercifully few, the committee called for an exemption in cases where legal representation would be desirable. Will the Government not accede to this request?
	The concerns are echoed in relation to young offenders, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, where, as the committee pointed out at paragraph 205, such
	matters, including in particular resettlement cases, are being removed even before the Government respond to their consultation paper,
	Transforming Youth Custody
	. Trenchantly at paragraph 206 the committee disagreed that advocacy services and internal complaints systems would be effective and asserted that:
	“This could leave young people vulnerable and deny them their rights”.
	This would be not least in key areas such as,
	“housing law, social care law and public law”.
	Moreover, it dismissed the young offender’s right to judicial review, which was raised by the Government, since a young offender would require a litigation friend to pursue the action; it cannot be brought by a minor on his own initiative. It urged the retention of young offender cases within scope, specifically resettlement cases. Finally, at paragraphs 213 and 218, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Bach, it recommended reconsideration of the position in relation to Parole Board hearings and categorisation cases. This is a formidable catalogue of concerns about, and in many cases outright opposition to, what the Government are doing.
	Once again, the Minister will shortly stand at the Dispatch Box, like Horatius on the bridge, with no troops behind him. There is not a single voice that has been raised in this Chamber tonight in support of the Government’s position. It would be unfair to suggest that the Minister, who was a member of the JCHR and presumably agreed with its report, has changed his mind now that he has taken if not the Queen’s shilling, then at least the Lord Chancellor’s shilling, if only because he is not being paid a shilling or indeed anything else for the job that he has undertaken. But I hope that he can prevail upon the Government to think again, and quickly, about the direction and extent of travel reflected in these regulations.
	I commend to him in particular the response of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law to these issues. The centre does not,
	“share the Government’s view that treatment cases will never be of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, or that sentencing matters such as categorisation and segregation are considered incapable of warranting legal aid”.
	Importantly, it dismisses the so-called “adequate alternatives” to which the Government refer—for example, the complaints system and the ombudsman—as “first ports of call”, in the MoJ’s phrase, for four substantial reasons.
	First, as per the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, whom I welcome back to the side of the angels after his digression over the issues of miscarriages of justice and compensation, the courts require alternative remedies to be exhausted before seeking judicial review, so legal aid would not be the first port of call. Secondly, under the regulations, the non-judicial remedies would be the only point of call. Thirdly,
	“the rule of law requires the possibility, at least as a last resort, of recourse to independent courts”,
	and, fourthly,
	“rule-of-law imperative is particularly compelling in settings—of which prisons are a paradigm example—in which individuals are subject to the exercise of highly coercive public law powers”.
	The centre concluded by affirming that,
	“judicial review has exerted a profound and positive influence upon the prison system in recent decades … the nature of any state’s prison system … is a key barometer of the rule of law”.
	Tellingly, it adds:
	“It is inevitable that the proposals, if implemented, would substantially undermine the valuable role played by courts in this area. If one of public law’s core functions is to safeguard vulnerable individuals against misuses of state authority, then it is hard to think of a more fundamental assault upon the capacity of public law to perform such a role”—
	and all the more so when the custodial services are contracted out to oligopolies such as G4S and Serco.
	What answer does the Minister have to this critique? Does he agree with the words uttered by Winston Churchill—who has already been quoted here tonight—as Home Secretary in 1910, when he said:
	“A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights … even of convicted criminals against the State … tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes … are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it”?—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354.]
	Is the Minister, and are the Government, willing to disavow Churchill’s characteristically eloquent formulation of principle for the sake of a possible, but actually unlikely, saving of £4 million a year?

Lord Faulks: My Lords, I hope that I can rise to the challenge of the “calm and dispassionate” response to which the noble Lord referred in his closing remarks. This has been a wide-ranging debate, involving very distinguished speakers with great knowledge and awareness of many of the issues which these regulations raise. I hope that the House will forgive me if, in the course of this dinner-hour debate, I do not respond to all the many criticisms that have been made but try to focus on the effect of the regulations and on why the Government have seen fit to bring them into effect.
	I will begin by saying something about the wider context of the instrument. It is worth noting that spending on criminal legal aid for prison law in England and Wales has increased markedly in recent years, from around £1 million in 2001-02 to around £22 million in 2012-13.
	Legal aid is a vital part of our justice system. However, limited public resources need to be targeted at those who need them most. With departments across government being asked to reduce their expenditure, legal aid cannot be immune. The legal aid scheme is paid for by the taxpayer, and we have to demonstrate to the public and hard- working families that we have scrutinised every aspect of legal aid spending to ensure that it can be justified. Unless the legal aid scheme is targeted at the people and cases where funding is most needed, it will not command public confidence. It was with this aim in mind that the Government proposed a number of changes to legal aid in England and Wales in April 2013. Following public consultation and careful consideration of the responses, the decision was taken to restrict the scope of criminal legal aid for prison law, among other reforms.
	The suggestion has been made that the Government did not respond at all or modify their view. With respect, that is not quite right. As a result of the consultation the Government agreed that they would fund all cases that involved the determination of a criminal charge for the purposes of Article 6, cases that required legal representation as a result of the successful application of the Tarrant criteria—the Tarrant case referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown—all proceedings before the Parole Board where the Parole Board has the power to direct release, and all sentence calculation matters where the date of release is disputed.
	The change to the scope of this legal aid aims to focus limited public resources on cases that are of sufficient priority to justify the use of public money. Criminal legal aid for prison law continues to be available for disciplinary hearings that determine a criminal charge and for ones before a governor where the Tarrant criteria are fulfilled—that is, where the governor has exercised discretion to permit legal representation following consideration of a number of criteria. Criminal legal aid remains available when the Parole Board has the power to direct the individual’s release. It also remains for cases regarding an individual’s sentence where the calculation by the Secretary of State of the date on which the individual is entitled to be released, or eligible for consideration by the Parole Board for a direction to be released, is disputed.
	Criminal legal aid advice and assistance is no longer available for any other prison law matter. This includes all matters related to an individual’s treatment in a prison, young offender institution or secure training centre—including, but not limited to, prison conditions, treatment by staff, and communications and visits. Most sentencing matters have also been removed from scope, including, but not limited to, categorisation, resettlement, sentence planning and licence conditions. Further disciplinary cases before a governor where the Tarrant criteria are not engaged are also no longer within scope. Nor are Parole Board matters where the board does not have the power to direct release.
	The Government consider that these issues removed from scope do not require the input of a lawyer. They can be, and indeed are, adequately resolved through the alternative means of redress already in place. These alternative means of redress, including the internal complaints system, the prison discipline procedures and the probation complaints systems, should be the first port of call for issues removed from scope. The internal prison complaint procedures, set out in Prison Service Instruction 02/2012, are robust and effective. The system is accessible to all, with measures in place for young offenders and for those with mental health issues and/or learning difficulties—and there has been much reference to those prisoners.
	For example, prisons are required to make sure that information is available in formats that all prisoners can understand. In particular, this means that prisoners who cannot read English because of a learning disability or because their first language is not English or who have difficulty reading or writing for any other reason will have information given to them in another format.
	Advocacy services are available for young offenders to help them navigate the complaints system and any other processes. If the complaints procedure does not resolve the issue, prisoners can also refer the matter to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman or the Independent Monitoring Board. Furthermore—and I accept what noble Lords have said that it is very much a last resort and subject to means and merits—civil legal aid may be available for judicial review.
	The changes in this instrument came into effect on 2 December 2013. Ahead of this date, the Ministry of Justice produced a series of communications for prisoners, staff and governors about the changes. These included information about how prisoners should seek to resolve issues that were no longer in the scope of criminal legal aid. The communications to staff and governors also reiterated the need for establishments to comply with the relevant Prison Service instructions, including the need to make reasonable adjustments for prisoners with protected characteristics, including those with mental health issues and/or learning disabilities. The Youth Justice Board—shortly to be chaired by my predecessor, my noble friend Lord McNally—has also written to all secure training centres, and Ministry of Justice officials have liaised with the Department for Education with the aim of ensuring that secure children’s homes receive the same message.
	The National Offender Management Service will formally approach Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons to include a complaints thematic inspection towards the end of 2014 or the beginning of 2015, or early in its 2015-16 programme of work, to allow time for the changes to criminal legal aid for prison law and any impact on the complaints system to take effect. This will test the complaints system after the changes to criminal legal aid have taken effect and will give an independent view on their impact. NOMS will continue to monitor the number of complaints submitted centrally to assess the impact on services. The effectiveness of the complaints process will continue to be assessed on an ongoing basis.
	There was a great deal of reference during the debate to mother and baby units. All treatment issues will no longer be in the scope of criminal legal aid for prison law, and that includes help for mothers in relation to places in mother and baby units. The Government believe that that does not create a risk of unfairness and that alternative means of redress, including the prison complaints system, are effective. No mother and baby unit cases have in fact been funded by criminal legal aid since July 2010. The significance of that date is that, since that time, providers have had to gain prior approval from the Legal Aid Agency, setting out the merits of the case before starting work.
	PSI 54/2011 sets out the procedures for mother and baby units and includes a requirement on governors to ensure that all women who are pregnant or who have a child below the age of 18 months have the opportunity to apply for a place on the unit. Women must be provided with a booklet about mother and baby units. That information must be available on each residential unit, in the prison library and in reception centres, first-night centres and induction units. The governors and directors of all women’s prisons must also appoint
	a named mother and baby unit liaison officer or deputy who will be responsible for assisting the woman in completing her application.
	The decision to admit a mother and her child is taken by the governor on the recommendation of an admission board chaired by an independent chair who is a certified social worker, so there is independence there. The board takes into account the best interests of the child, the necessity to maintain good order and discipline within the unit and the health and safety of other babies and mothers in the unit. Any mother who is refused a place can appeal against the decision of the admissions board by using the internal complaints system, which does not require a lawyer.
	Concern was expressed about the issue of categorisation. Of the areas removed from the scope of criminal legal aid, there are about 6,000 legally aided categorisation cases per year, based on the 2012-13 data. If prisoners were to be held in a higher security category than necessary as a result of that change, there would be an additional cost burden. However, we consider that the alternative means of redress, such as the prisoner complaints system, are sufficient to deal with those matters satisfactorily. In fact, being in a higher category does not of itself prevent release. If, contrary to our view, as a result of the change to criminal legal aid, prisoners were held in a higher category than necessary, there would be an additional cost burden, although we cannot quantify the number of cases. Although the average cost per prison place increases as a result of increases in the prisoner security classification, it will have only a marginal impact on overall costs, as there is an oversupply of high security places and an undersupply of lower security places.
	The issue of Parole Board hearings was raised. As many noble Lords will be aware, a Parole Board hearing is invariably inquisitorial, and we do not accept that it requires a legal representative to ensure fairness for the prisoner. I appreciate that the Parole Board has expressed anxiety about some prisoners not being represented, and of course any Parole Board would probably prefer to have a prisoner represented by a lawyer rather than to deal with them directly, but the Government have great faith in the highly skilled members of the Parole Board and their inability to elicit and assess relevant information and do not consider that the additional costs are justifiable.
	While dealing with particular costs, reference was made to the standard fee of £220. That is the lower standard fee for advice and assistance; the higher standard fee is about £600 for more complex cases. The average cost of Parole Board representation is, I am told, around £2,000. As noble Lords will appreciate, where release date and the sentence term is concerned, there will be representation before the Parole Board.
	I move to another area of concern, which was the general lack of faith that a number of noble Lords expressed in the complaints system. The Ministry of Justice has issued a series of communications for governors, staff and prisoners to reinforce compliance with the relevant PSIs in all establishments, to ensure that staff and prisoners are fully aware of the changes being made and the proposed alternative means of redress. The Youth Justice Board has also written to
	all secure training centres, and Ministry of Justice officials have liaised with the Department for Education with the aim of ensuring that secure children’s homes receive the same message.
	NOMS will formally approach HMIP to include a complaints thematic inspection towards the end of 2014—which, as I have said, will test the complaints system. The changes were made to the complaints system following Prison Service instruction as a result of an audit that was carried out on the National Offender Management Service to assess the adequacy, effectiveness and reliability of controls operating over prisoner complaints. The audit found that the system was generally working as set out in the Prison Service instructions, although a number of recommendations were made and accepted in full by NOMS.
	There was also a suggestion that the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman did not have the resources to deal with its role. We expect that the majority of cases that are removed from scope will be resolved via the prisoner complaints system, prisoner discipline proceedings or the probation complaints systems. These are, we suggest, robust systems designed to deal with serious issues of concern for prisoners or those released on licence. Only those cases that cannot be satisfactorily resolved via these processes, which we expect to be a small number, will be referred to the ombudsman. Prisoners may also refer their case to the independent monitoring board.

Lord Beecham: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but at paragraph 175 of its report the committee says specifically:
	“the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman … told us about his concerns with the Government’s proposal, particularly in relation to his lack of statutory independence and his office’s ability to deal with any increased workload”.
	How does the Minister square that with the assurance that he has just given?

Lord Faulks: The assurance that I have just given is that the Government take the view that it will be rare that there will be any need to refer to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. However, the Ministry of Justice intends to put the PPO on a statutory footing as soon as legislative time permits. I note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted—and this must be in the same section to which the noble Lord referred—that the PPO has himself “acknowledged that his recommendations”, while not binding, are in fact “always accepted”.
	There was understandable anxiety about mental health issues and learning difficulties for young offenders. The Government are of course extremely concerned with young offenders and their rehabilitation. I could give a detailed response, but that would be outside the scope of this debate, which is concerned with legal aid. That issue is a matter of continuing concern to the House, and indeed to the Government, just as the position with mental health issues is also a concern. I accept that many prisoners have a background with mental health issues.
	Noble Lords may ask what is done to screen prisoners for mental health problems. As part of the early days in custody process, all prisoners are risk-assessed for
	potential harm to themselves and to others and from others. All incoming prisoners are given a medical examination to identify any short-term or long-term physical or mental health needs, including disability, drug or alcohol issues, and to ensure that follow-up action is taken.
	Questions were raised as to how vulnerable prisoners, such as those with mental health issues or learning disabilities or those who cannot read or write, can be expected to represent themselves even in relation to an internal complaint. We believe that prisoners with mental health issues and/or learning disabilities and those whose first language is not English will be able effectively to resolve those issues. Prison service instruction PSI 32/2011, at paragraph 1.8, gives the following mandatory action:
	“Disability: prisoners encouraged to disclose disabilities. Reasonable adjustments made and recorded”.
	Those involved are experienced at helping prisoners present their arguments appropriately and such adjustments will continue to be made. To give just one example, prisoners are allowed,
	“to make a formal complaint orally to a member of staff where the prisoner has difficulty doing so in writing”,
	and members of staff are required to ensure prisoners understand the response given to their complaint. The need for compliance with these aspects of the complaints system process, which is set out in PSI 02/2012, has been reinforced in the communications to prisons.
	Time is running out on me, but there are a series of steps made to ensure that in secure establishments for young people there are comprehensive internal complaints systems. As noble Lords will know, advocacy services are also provided in youth establishments to help young people navigate the processes, including the process of resettlement that was referred to. There are other issues which I have not been able to cover in the time that I have thought appropriate to deal with a debate of this magnitude, but I hope that I can deal with some of those in writing.
	One central theme in the very fierce criticism made of my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor is that there is an ideological basis for his approach to these issues. I do not know what was meant by the term “ideological”, but the position of the Ministry of Justice is certainly not that prisoners do not deserve proper consideration as members of society who have temporarily lost their liberty. It is simply that they should have legal aid, and legal aid should still remain in those circumstances where their liberty is in fact affected, or might be affected, by the lack of representation.
	However, in these straitened times, there has to be some modification of legal aid to circumstances where, in the Government’s view, it is not necessary for the complaints—and there may be a number of complaints made by prisoners—to have the benefit of lawyers, provided that the systems, which we believe are there and can continue to develop, will allow them to make complaints in a way that does not leave them especially vulnerable but allows them to make complaints in a proper way without imposing on the Government the
	unnecessary expense of lawyers. We have targeted legal aid where we think it is most appropriate. If that is an ideological matter, then I accept that it is ideological. Certainly we have no wish to persecute prisoners for populist reasons. It is an attempt to deal with a difficult problem in these straitened times.
	That is the Government’s response to the Motion of Regret. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have illuminated this debate with their many and widespread concerns for prisoners, but I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion.

Lord Beecham: Before the Minister sits down, can he tell the House if and when the Government will be publishing their response to the Joint Committee report of 13 December?

Lord Faulks: I cannot I am afraid give an exact date for that, but I shall take back the noble Lord’s concern and I will write to him when I have information. Of course, it is a matter that will be taken very seriously at the Ministry of Justice.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for doing his best to defend this sorry set of regulations. The Government are very fortunate indeed to have his services on the Front Bench. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and who have explained with clarity and force why the regulations are wrong in principle and damaging in their consequences.
	The Minister may have noticed the embarrassing lack of support for these regulations on the Benches behind him, and indeed anywhere in this House tonight. Before the Minister’s speech, your Lordships heard 15 speeches—I have been counting—all of them regretting these regulations and all highly critical of them and of the purported justifications for them. Noble Lords who have spoken tonight have reflected the widespread concern about the regulations that exists outside this House.
	The Minister’s main argument, that the internal complaints system and the ombudsman system are an effective substitute for legal assistance and advice, is simply contrary to the advice of the Parole Board, the inspector of prisons and the ombudsman. It is contrary to court judgments over the years. It is contrary to the experience of all those who have spoken tonight, apart from the Minister. Indeed, it is irrational, given the lack of literacy, the youth, the immaturity and the mental health difficulties of so many prisoners, let alone their obvious inability to identify and present the issues that arise in their cases.
	I ask the Minister to send a copy of today’s Hansard to the Secretary of State tomorrow morning, to ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the nature and strength of the concerns that have been expressed tonight from the broad experience and expertise that so characterise this place, to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the absence of any support for these regulations outside his own ministry and to ask the Secretary of State to think again about this important matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion in my name.
	Motion withdrawn.

Children and Families Bill
	 — 
	Report (5th Day) (Continued)

Clause 81: Duty to support pupils with medical conditions
	Amendment 57C
	 Moved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark
	57C: Clause 81, page 57, line 16, at end insert—
	“(7) In preparing and implementing individual health care plans and following the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and governing bodies must work together in fulfilling their functions under this Act.”

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the time that they have given to me, my noble friend Lady Young, many of the staff at Diabetes UK and many others. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests: I am the chair of a small council at Diabetes UK.
	I very much welcome the decision that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the Government made to include in the Bill a duty on schools to make arrangements for children with health conditions. I am genuinely grateful for that; it is a hugely positive step, and one that we hope will ensure that children with medical conditions get the support and help that they need to thrive at school. The draft guidance sets out many things that schools must do to ensure that children with medical conditions can take part in all parts of school life and give them the best possible chance of reaching their academic potential while staying safe and healthy. The draft guidance also acknowledges the different roles that CCGs, local authorities, schools, nurses, GPs and providers of health services have in ensuring that children with medical conditions get the support that they need to be in school. School nurses have several key roles in helping schools to meet the needs of children with medical conditions.
	For many children with medical conditions, their specialist nurse often fulfils this role. Without this medical expertise, schools would not be in a position properly to support children with medical conditions, from awareness training about a condition right up to full training about a child’s condition, the administration of medicine and the use of equipment. While these responsibilities are included in the draft guidance, there remains no requirement in the Bill for local authorities or CCGs to fulfil their roles. That is why I have tabled Amendment 57C. It is essential that schools know that they can rely on their local authority, CCG and local health services to provide the expertise and training their staff will need.
	The problems people report to many of the charities in the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance suggest that there will be an initial increase in requests for training as schools improve their support. We do not want to see some schools left without the training and skills their staff need.
	We are already aware that there have been many occasions when schools have asked for training and the local authority or the local health service has not been able to provide it. The draft guidance refers to the NHS Act 2006 and Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, but these are general duties rather than ones that specifically meet the very particular needs that schools will have in securing the training they need for their staff. Has the Minister considered the possibility that some schools will not be able to access the training and expertise their staff need? If local authorities and CCGs cannot or will not provide the training and skills they need, will the Minister clarify what the next step is for a school in that situation?
	When considering this point, it is important that we face up to some of the realities. We know that there are roughly 1,300 fully qualified schools nurses. The average school nurse already looks after around 10 primary schools and two secondary schools. Even if the number of school nurses were to increase, it would take several years, and the duty needs to start to make a difference this September.
	At the moment, we know that for more complex needs it is often the specialist nurse who organises training, helps to produce the individual healthcare plan and advises how much support each child requires. If the duty is to make an impact, the roles of the specialist nurse, school nurses and the local authorities that commission them and other healthcare professionals are vital. How will the crucial role of healthcare professionals, local authorities and CCGs in making sure that things improve in school for children with health conditions be communicated to them?
	The indicative draft makes it very clear just how important an individual healthcare plan is. An individual healthcare plan draws together the thoughts of the school, a healthcare professional, pupils and parents. It makes clear how the condition might affect the pupil, sets out the medicine and equipment they need, and details the management of their condition, who should be trained, the level of support needed, what to do in emergencies and who is responsible for doing what. It is also tailored specifically to each child or young person with a medical condition. Yet the indicative draft guidance also states that not all children with a medical condition will need an individual healthcare plan. The Health Conditions in Schools Alliance has said that it cannot envisage a situation in which a child with a medical condition would not need an individual healthcare plan. Even in circumstances where the pupil manages the condition themselves and is rarely affected by it, it is worth noting in an individual healthcare plan that the condition exists, the medicine the pupil takes to control it and what to do in an emergency. As it stands, the guidance gives schools an opportunity to opt out of delivering individual healthcare plans. It also raises the question: who makes this decision? We do not want a situation where someone is making arbitrary judgments on who does and does not get an individual healthcare plan.
	The draft guidance makes very clear the role of the governing body in fulfilling the duty, both in agreeing policies and in making sure that they are delivered. Paragraph 10 of the guidance covers renewing policies
	regularly, which is very welcome. It would be strengthened further if it was made clear that governing bodies should audit the support the school provides for children with health conditions so that they know their medical condition and put it into policy, and ensure that any individual healthcare plans are delivered.
	Many charities have recognised the complaint that some children’s individual healthcare plans are not followed. Making sure that the school fulfils what has been agreed will contribute to ensuring that children get the support they need. Again, I thank the Minister for what he has addressed on this subject so far, and I am pleased with what has been achieved to date. If he could respond to the questions I have asked, I would be very grateful, and if he could give some clarity on these last few points, I think we will be able to make real progress here.

Lord Storey: My Lords, never again will a pupil with medical conditions be excluded from full or part-time education, school trips, physical education and extra-curricular activities because of their medical condition. I applaud the Government for the stance they have taken in this area, as do the voluntary and charitable sectors. This is light years from where we were before. This document, which is still for consultation—that will be an opportunity to feed in many of the issues—is one of the best things I have seen. It deals in detail with a whole host of issues. A few things are missing from that document, and I look forward to feeding them in during the consultation period.
	The important thing for me, which is in the document, is that governing bodies will have the responsibility to ensure that the procedures are followed and that when a school is first notified that a pupil has a medical condition, action will follow. Governing bodies will also ensure that the policies cover the role of individual healthcare plans. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on this—and I will be interested in the Minister’s reply—as I cannot envisage a situation where a child or young person who has a medical condition would not have a healthcare plan. I cannot get my head around that, as it seems obvious. This is not bureaucratic or about more clerical work, but just plain common sense. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
	I like the point made in this document that supporting a child is not just the responsibility of the school but a partnership between professionals and the parents themselves. I also like that GPs will have responsibility for notifying schools when a child has a medical condition. That is important, and it has often not happened in the past. I will end by thanking the Minister for taking this important issue forward, and I look forward to his response on the issue of healthcare plans.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I also put my name to this amendment, and I very much support everything that has been said so far on these issues. I congratulate the Government, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in particular, on having listened to
	what Peers and charities in the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance have said. They have done a great deal to work out a way forward. Again, I will not repeat the many things that have already been mentioned, which are now on the table to be worked out in detail, but the area that perhaps interests me more than any other is the role of governing bodies in ensuring that teachers in schools have the training and expertise that their staff require to cope with situations.
	We all know that there is a shortage of qualified school nurses; we hope to hear from the Government how their number might be increased. It is not only that; an area that worries me concerns those with special needs that also involve mental health problems. Those students may well need guidance from an increased number of educational psychologists, among others.
	We all want to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to ensure that this partnership between so many organisations will be delivered to the benefit of children and families generally, so that they will feel—as they have not felt in the past—that they are being supported in the situations that they have to cope with and have always tried their best to cope with. However, they have felt very much that they did not get the help they deserved. I thank the Minister for what he has done so far and hope that he will be able to reassure us still further on some of the areas about which we have concern.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I, too, offer my thanks and congratulations to the Minister and the Government for the considerable progress made since Committee and for the frankly stunning indicative guidance. It is not yet out for consultation, but it is extremely helpful. Of course, the problem with providing your Lordships’ House with such prospective guidance is that we all have things that we think could better it. I will not repeat the points that noble Lords have already made, but will add briefly the two or three that I am concerned about.
	I reiterate that the guidance must make it explicit that children with diagnosed health conditions are given an individual healthcare plan, even if there are no obvious actions, not least because medical and health conditions change and for a child at school suddenly to have to go through that process, when it was known about at the start, seems rather foolish. It will speed up the planning process and the school’s ability to monitor the child’s health if they are already on the radar of the school.
	I particularly like the section in paragraph 39 on unacceptable practice. This is extremely helpful, but there is one glaring omission. Nowhere does it say that schools must take account of a doctor’s diagnosis rather than make their own. In Committee I mentioned a young man who was struggling with severe ME and chronic fatigue syndrome; but because the head did not believe that ME existed, he was given no rest times and was actually excluded because he was unable to take part in sport, which was deemed to be bad behaviour. Despite the fact that his hospital consultant had given the school formal advice, the head chose to ignore it. That is unacceptable bad practice and, in my view, it needs to be included.
	That relates also to the ambiguity in the guidance about whether pupils with medical conditions should have individual healthcare plans. We must not have a get-out clause for schools. I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurance on that point and others that my colleagues have made.
	Finally, I give my particular thanks to the Minister and his team for meeting me to discuss my idea about access for teachers with frequently asked questions on a range of health conditions. This is now progressing: discussions are about to start with officials in the Department of Health. I know that the Health Conditions School Alliance already has a date to discuss that and other things with the department in the very near future. When a school nurse is not around, this tool for teachers is going to be absolutely vital. It is not going to be technical and complex but will help to alleviate the fears that a teacher will have if a child suddenly moves into their class with a condition of which they have no experience at all, and if they want to understand both the learning and social implications of such a condition.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, at this time of night I shall be brief and not repeat anything that has already been said. However, I wish to make effusive remarks about the Minister’s response to the case made by the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance and for bringing forward a government amendment to the Bill, for which we are grateful. I thank the Minister for ensuring that the indicative draft of the guidance was available before we discussed this element of the Bill.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for proposing this very important amendment. He sought a response from the Minister on what happens if a school—schools now have a very clear responsibility to look after these children—fails to get an adequate input from the local health system in terms of support and making plans for individual children. From time to time staff at schools across the country say that they would like to provide a better response in this regard but are unable to do so because they do not get adequate training and support from the local health system. Therefore, this amendment is important as it would reinforce the existing duties under the Children Act—which, alas, are currently ignored—and make sure that a school is not put in the impossible position of having a statutory duty but no means of carrying it out if it is not given the necessary support.
	School nurses are important but so are specialist nurses for various conditions because in many cases their specialist knowledge will be required to establish an adequate plan for each child. Therefore, this issue cannot be left simply to school nurses, quite apart from the workload issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised.
	I know that this issue is of great concern to the trade unions. It was, indeed, their only stumbling block. I held the mistaken belief that the trade unions were not willing to take up this challenge on an ideological basis. However, their concerns were practical ones. They were very willing to see teachers give this support to children provided they were properly supported
	and trained to do so. Therefore, the question is: what does a school do if the NHS does not step up to the plate in providing training and support for it?
	The indicative guidance rightly talks about the role of Ofsted in ensuring that schools meet this new duty. However, there needs to be further discussion between the department and Ofsted about the latter’s role and what it will be able to do in relation to this issue. The guidance says that inspectors are already briefed to consider the needs of pupils with chronic or long-term medical conditions and to report on how well their needs are being met. However, that was not quite the impression I got when I met the Chief Inspector of Schools a few weeks ago, so clarity is needed about what requirements will be laid on Ofsted, not perhaps in terms of this duty being fully inspected but at least the forthcoming guidance to inspectors should brief them on it. Perhaps at some stage an ad hoc report could be produced on how well the guidance is being implemented. I press the Minister to tell us what a school will do if it hits a brick wall with the NHS.

Lord Nash: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their comments on Amendment 57C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and to all those noble Lords who have brought these matters to our attention. We are in consultation on the guidance and we welcome all noble Lords’ comments on it and on all other matters. I hope that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and other noble Lords that further primary legislation is not necessary.
	I agree that it is very important for local authorities, health bodies and governing bodies to work collaboratively to ensure that pupils with medical conditions are supported effectively in school. It is crucial that children and young people receive the right support from relevant organisations and appropriate professionals to assist them in their daily lives. The time that they spend in school is a very large part of this and it is entirely reasonable to expect all agencies to work together to ensure that their needs are met.
	I fully support the intention behind the amendment but I believe that there is no need to place a direct duty through primary legislation on clinical commissioning groups and local authorities to co-operate in this way with schools. We need to focus on ensuring that the right framework and the right practice are in place to make sure that pupils receive the support that they need in school, and this is achieved by what we are setting up through the new duty, alongside existing legislation. I hope that noble Lords will agree that, as we have said many times before, this is about achieving a culture change so that every child is supported at school to succeed and be safe.
	As noble Lords may be aware, a duty to promote co-operation already exists in Section 10 of the Children Act 2004. This requires a local authority to make arrangements to promote co-operation between its relevant partners to improve the well-being of children in its area. These include health bodies, such as clinical commissioning groups, and governing bodies. Local
	authorities are required to make such arrangements with a view to improving the physical and mental health, emotional well-being and education of children in their area. This duty to promote co-operation also extends to any other persons or bodies who exercise functions, or are engaged in activities, that relate to children in the authority’s area. I believe that the new duty and statutory guidance, when taken together with this existing legislation, will provide the framework that is needed to meet the concerns raised by noble Lords.
	The relationship between schools, health bodies and local authorities is extremely important and we have good examples of where it already works well. Local authorities are commissioners of school nurses and they look to CCGs to ensure that sufficient provision is available to meet need—for example, ensuring that school staff can be trained to support pupils with medical conditions as appropriate. CCGs and local authorities will also take a strategic view of what is needed to support schools.
	There are further existing models of good practice that we can draw from. Specialist local nursing teams, for conditions such as asthma or epilepsy, work closely with schools, and the NHS offers training days, hosted by schools, for school staff on how to cope with emergencies and support children with such conditions. This is exactly the sort of arrangement that we want to see and encourage, and it is the sort of co-ordinated approach to co-operation that the Children Act duty supports.
	I am confident that the combination of the co-operation provisions in the Children Act, the new duty and the new statutory guidance will provide the legislative framework needed to ensure that pupils with medical conditions receive the support they need, and that this will be sufficient to deliver the underlying aims of the amendment. The statutory guidance has an important role to play in ensuring that pupils’ needs are met holistically on the ground and that the required cultural change can be achieved. This is where we can set out our expectations and clearly explain the roles and responsibilities of all those involved.
	In Committee, I gave a commitment to update your Lordships on progress with the guidance ahead of Report. I am pleased that we have been able to share with noble Lords a full indicative draft of the guidance ahead of this debate. Importantly, this has been developed in close collaboration with the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance and a wide range of other stakeholders. I take this opportunity to thank those organisations for working so closely and collaboratively with us.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a point about governors’ obligations in this regard. In fact, we have recently emphasised in the Governors’ Handbook the importance of governors considering all pupils’ well-being. However, I will take back the noble Lord’s point and look at it again.
	Noble Lords will be able to see that the guidance specifically refers to the co-operation duty in Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 and articulates our expectations that health service, social care and education organisations and their professionals will work together
	to ensure that pupils with medical conditions receive the support they need at school. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to training. This should ensure that schools are given enough training. Of course, if the support is not there, this can be taken up with the local authority. We will need to look at this carefully and see how it goes. My officials and I would be very happy to discuss this point with the noble Lord further because I think that it is an extremely good one in practice.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made the point about Ofsted. Noble Lords may recall that in Committee I said that I would write to Ofsted about this issue asking it to reinforce the new duty through the inspection process. I am pleased to report that having done that Ofsted has replied saying it places great importance on this matter, and has confirmed that it will take into account the new duty when preparing its inspection guidance ahead of September 2014.
	The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about children who may not have a plan. Most children will have a plan but there may be some returning to school following illness who need to finish a course of medication and do not need a plan. We need to cover those pupils as well. On opting out, the governing body makes the decision on who has a plan, in consultation with parents and health professionals. If the practice is not happening on the ground, the school will need an extremely good reason for not delivering it. If, for whatever reason, parents are dissatisfied, they can make a formal complaint through the school’s complaints procedure. If that is not satisfactory, they can then complain to the Secretary of State via the DfE’s complaints unit asking him to intervene. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made the point about unacceptable practice and taking into account a doctor’s diagnosis in developing a plan. We will look at that to make it more clear.
	As I have said, we will be testing all these points during public consultation. We will of course consider carefully all comments that we receive. We plan to launch the consultation next week and would be grateful for comments from noble Lords on this before finalising the guidance for schools to use from September this year. It is my view that the right drivers and incentives are now in place to ensure we achieve our objectives on this important issue. Culture change is never easy and does not happen overnight but I believe that on this issue we are all united and behind the same goal. As the new duty is implemented, we will keep the arrangements under regular review. I hope that that is sufficient to reassure noble Lords and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his response. I still have one or two concerns. The opt-out is an issue, as is the issue about what governing bodies and schools do. I accept his kind offer to meet with officials, which I will do in the next few days. Other noble Lords may want to come with me. There are one or two small things that can be ironed out. Having said that, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has done up to now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 57C withdrawn.
	Amendment 57D
	 Moved by Baroness Brinton
	57D: After Clause 81, insert the following new Clause—
	“Provision and support for bullied children
	(1) The Secretary of State must produce an anti-bullying strategy (“the Strategy”) (and consequential Code of Practice and Statutory Guidelines) for schools and further education institutions on ways of preventing and protecting children and young people from bullying and ensuring effective recovery programmes to counter the consequences of severe bullying.
	(2) The Strategy produced under subsection (1) must include a comprehensive definition of bullying.
	(3) The Strategy shall ensure cross links between the SEN and Anti-Bullying Codes of Practice and Statutory Guidelines, so that schools are aware that some bullied children and young people will have special educational needs.
	(4) Where the impact of bullying results in a pupil or student having social, mental or emotional needs, schools and further education institutions should use the graduated approach detailed in the SEN Code of Practice, but if those needs are complex and will not be met through this approach, then an education, health and care plan should be made.
	(5) Where any bullied child or student who has been out of school or further education institution for a period of three months or longer, and who has mental or emotional problems (whether or not they are impacting on the child or student’s learning), the school or further education institution will have a duty to help provide an urgent referral to the child or young person’s local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.
	(6) A bullied pupil or student who is unable to attend their school or institution, but who is still on the roll, must be brought to the attention of the local authority by their school or institution within three months of starting to miss school.
	(7) Where a pupil or student is brought to the attention of the local authority under subsection (6), it has a duty to find alternative provision that is suitable for the pupil or student and their needs, and the pupil or student’s educational establishment has a duty to co-operate with the local authority.
	(8) During an inspection, OFSTED will expect a school or institution to provide details of the plan for any child out of school for an extended period who is still on the school roll.”

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for the helpful meeting and exchange of letters that we have had on this important matter of provision and support for bullied children since Committee. I have laid a much simplified probing amendment in the hope that we can make further progress, given that there was considerable cross-party support for the original amendments.
	My amendment falls into four distinct parts. The first three sections all seek to strengthen the definition of bullying and the cross-links between the special educational needs code of practice and the bullying code of practice for all bullying incidents. The new draft definition, which I was kindly shown, strengthens and picks up many of the points in the original amendment. There is one minor omission. The second to last line of the new paragraph refers to how bullying can result in intimidation of a victim through the threat of violence or by isolating them either face to face or online. I am afraid the reality is that we need to insert the words, “as well as actual violence”. Apart from that, the new definition is extremely helpful and I am grateful that we were allowed to see it.
	Can the Minister give the House more concrete evidence that, when bullying has happened, a school or college is required to consider the SEN implications for that pupil or student, and that there will be formal cross-links between the two codes of practice? If the Minister can provide that reassurance, it would go a considerable way towards the original amendment tabled in Committee, which asked for all severely bullied children to be considered as having special educational needs. This is because a very large number of children are affected both physically and mentally, because they and their families often seek help from doctors and because at present there is no requirement for children and adult mental health services to prioritise them.
	Subsections (4) and (5) of the proposed new clause address that. A child out of school for a period of three months as a result of bullying almost invariably suffers from depression. They can self-harm, develop panic attacks or anorexia or want to kill themselves—and as we know, around 20 a year are successful in killing themselves. Speedy access to CAMHS is vital. Will my noble friend provide reassurance that children in this state can get the help they need, with quick referral? Three months out of school is too long for a pupil to be away from learning and without active support. Will he also confirm that a child diagnosed with clinical depression, whether from bullying or not, would be considered as having a health condition and therefore come under the guidance that we have discussed in the previous group of amendments?
	The next part of the proposed new clause—subsections (6) and (7)—tackles the difficulty of educational provision for those children so severely bullied that they cannot face attending school or college. I remind your Lordships that academic research by the National Centre for Social Research estimates that on average 16,000 pupils or students a year are in this position. That is the equivalent of 16 average-sized secondary schools, which is a shockingly high number. I am grateful for the points that the Minister commented on in Committee. There is some specialist alternative provision through the new free schools, but at present there are only a handful in the country as a whole, and most of the alternative-provision free schools focus on students with emotional and behavioural difficulties and only a handful on bullied children. There is certainly nothing that would cover the 16,000 children who need support.
	These children cannot face going into the school where the bullying happened, even in a special unit inside the school—they cannot even cross the boundary through the school gates. They must not go to pupil referral units or to an alternative provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. What can be provided for these children, both in the short term and the longer term? What support can local authorities access to make that provision for them work, as some schools do not allow the money to follow the child, even though the child is not in school? Finally, will the Minister ensure that at the very least Ofsted will ask schools to account for children who are not attending for long periods, for whatever reason, and to state what action the school has taken to help them?
	I end on a positive note. The Government are doing very well on beginning to change the culture around bullying, particularly through their £4 million support for the Anti-Bullying Alliance, and including the work of Anti-Bullying PRO, which is training pupils as anti-bullying ambassadors. I have seen them in practice and in training and they are extremely impressive—but it takes time, and only a few can be trained at any one time. It is a small organisation and there are thousands of schools.
	I have also seen the wonderful new online ChildLine help that helps combat cyberbullying and sexting, called Zipit. If noble Lords have not had a chance to look at it, they should do so. It is a polite and slightly tongue-in-cheek way for the young to put down friends and pupils who send them inappropriate or bullying messages in a way that does not make them feel as though they are victims. The whole thing can be simply calmed down. ChildLine has done very well by producing that. Frankly, more needs to be done, and I hope to hear the Minister today provide reassurance to your Lordships’ House on this very serious issue. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Brinton on this amendment and congratulate her on her determination and persistence in the interests of these severely bullied children. She has over the years managed to convince successive Education Ministers in your Lordships’ House that there is a need for something to be done for these children. So far, not an awful lot has been done, until very recently. What we need—and what we have, fortunately—is the expertise and skills of my noble friend the Minister. I am convinced that he is going to knock heads together and that something will happen.
	Because of the late hour I will make just three brief points. Although all eight subsections of my noble friend’s proposed new clause are important, I think that three of them are particularly important. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the words at the end of the first subsection, which is about the Secretary of State,
	“ensuring effective recovery programmes to counter the consequences of severe bullying”.
	There are organisations that know how to do it—and these children should not and must not be lost children. They can be recovered, they are being recovered, by some wonderful organisations, but these organisations find it very difficult to get the money, as my noble friend has pointed out. Their expertise must be expanded on and cloned across the country to deal with these 16,000 children. I learnt just recently that, sadly, three of their centres have had to close because of lack of funding. That is a tragedy because of the good work that they can and should be doing.
	In proposed new subsection (7) my noble friend says that she wants the school to have,
	“a duty to find alternative provision that is suitable for the pupil or student and their needs”.
	That does not mean a PRU. Very often that is where the bullies are, so that is certainly not suitable for these children’s needs.
	Finally, I should like to echo my noble friend’s comments about Ofsted. We all know how very influential it is when Ofsted makes a point of inspecting something or asking about something. Unfortunately, what often happens is that when a child is on the school roll but does not attend, pressure is put on the parents to take them and give them home education even though the parent may not really be capable of doing it and would have to give up their job, which the family economy could not bear. We must try to stop that practice happening. If Ofsted is putting schools on the spot and saying, “This pupil has not been attending—what have you done about it? Where are they going? How are you making sure that the money follows them into appropriate provision”, then something will happen.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She is a real expert in this area and it was important that she put this amendment down. I would like to stress one particular point—the role of the school in all of this. At one stage I came across a group of schools that had a very effective policy of dealing with this situation. Their method was to have a mentor for each pupil who entered the school, and the child who was mentoring got merit points for successfully introducing and making life smooth for the new student. I very much hope that we can do a little more to find out what group of schools that was—I regret to say that I have lost my details on it. It seems a very good example of best practice to sell right across the stage of all schools. As we know, it is not just a question of bullying in schools—there is bullying in all forms of life, including employment when you grow up as well.
	I hope that the Minister will take all this very seriously. The role of school governors is important, and I should perhaps have mentioned earlier that I am president of the NGA. I think we have a meeting with school governors and the Minister shortly, and this is one of the items that it will be important to put on the agenda.

Lord Storey: I support my noble friend Lady Brinton on this excellent probing amendment, and will briefly take the opportunity to say that often the bully needs support as well. I have seen many occasions where that support has been given to the bully. Sometimes the bully, with the support of the parents, is referred and the problems are sorted. I say this with great caution but often, quite rightly, we put all our emphasis on the poor child or young person who is being bullied and we forget about the bully. Often with the bully, it is a cry or plea for help. As well as doing all the excellent things that my noble friend Lady Brinton is saying we should, we have to find and understand that need.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this at this late hour, but I am tempted to, as I thought that every school had to have a bullying strategy and that there was a code. It may sit dustily on a shelf in the headmaster’s study but it is supposed to be there. I thought schools had to have a practice and some sort of plan to involve children and young people in that strategy. ChildLine
	has certainly produced peer programmes down the years where young people have worked together to prevent bullying themselves, through their councils. Much as I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her efforts, it is my understanding that this should already be in every school.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I did not want our relative silence on these Benches to be interpreted as meaning that we were not in full support of the noble Baroness’s amendment. She will know that we have consistently worked with and supported her on these issues. Because of the lateness of the hour, I do not intend reading the speech that I had prepared, but will simply say that we think that having a national anti-bullying strategy combined with the code of practice, in the way that is described in this amendment, is a sensible staged approach to dealing with this very sensitive and growing issue. We accept that head teachers and teachers must have some discretion, as I think the Minister said in Committee, but they also need help and support. This package is the right combination for that and I hope that the noble Lord is able to persuade us that the Government are taking this seriously going forward.

Lord Nash: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and assure them that we take this matter very seriously. I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Brinton for bringing her experience and expertise to bear on these issues. I also thank my noble friend for meeting me recently and for helping me to better understand her very legitimate concerns about the impact bullying can have on the lives of children and young people. I know that she is aware that we share those concerns.
	Although I am not persuaded that legislation is the right approach, those discussions have proved extremely useful in identifying gaps in our advice to schools and in helping us to understand how we can do more to address these important issues. As a direct result of the debates in this House and discussions outside it—with both my noble friend and other experts, notably the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which has always provided us with helpful and constructive input in the development of our approaches—we are committed to enhancing our advice to schools. I will say a bit more about precisely what we are doing in a moment.
	The Government take a zero-tolerance approach to bullying and our advice to schools on this is clear and firm. I acknowledge that there is a place for legislation. All schools are required to have a behaviour policy which contains measures to tackle bullying, and we think that this approach is the right one. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, talked about these policies being on shelves but I do not think that, in the modern world, with the kind of pupils and inner-city issues that we have, any school can afford to have any of these policies on shelves. They are right at the forefront of practice and I know that bullying is something that all good schools take very seriously indeed. However, the national strategy that the amendment proposes could focus schools’ attention on complying with it as a tick-box exercise at the expense of allowing teachers
	to exercise their professional judgment, creativity and energy to tackle bullying as it presents itself in their particular school.
	We had a question earlier today about Islamophobic bullying. Shortly after 9/11, outside Pimlico Academy in Lupus Street, which my wife and I sponsor, there was a fight between 200 non-Muslim and 200 Muslim pupils who just went at each other. It was basically a riot. There were police on horseback and ambulances. It was quite dreadful. Such issues are not easily sorted out by dusting bits of paper off shelves. I am not saying that having a strategy is not important, but that school has worked hard over a long period and I am pleased to say that racism there is a thing of the past. This is essential to all good schools.
	However, it is important that schools are held to account for their effectiveness in tackling behaviour and bullying. That is why we reduced the reporting requirements for school inspections in 2011 to focus on the core business of a school: four core areas, of which one is behaviour and safety, instead of the previous 27. In setting out how inspectors should judge this, Ofsted’s inspection handbook includes explicit reference to considering types, rates and patterns of bullying. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, also referred earlier to friendship groups. School inspectors must consider how schools prevent and tackle bullying, and where necessary prompt schools to improve. This approach encourages schools really to focus on behaviour and bullying.
	I know that concerns were raised in Committee that inspectors do not always see schools as they really are. Since the first Ofsted inspections in 1992, there has been a steady journey towards unannounced visits. Initially schools received more than a year’s notice of inspectors turning up. Over time, this shifted to eight weeks, and from 2005 to around two days. Under this Government, this has been reduced to almost no notice, with inspectors calling head teachers the afternoon before an inspection takes place. In December, launching his annual report, the chief inspector announced that where there were concerns about pupils’ behaviour, including bullying, schools could be subject to visits with no notice at all. I believe that these measures ensure that inspectors see schools as they really are; we no longer hear stories of pupils being sent to the ice rink for the day or asked to stay at home.
	Our approach and strategy provide the right balance between requirements in law, flexibility for schools and strict accountability. My noble friend also proposed that a comprehensive definition of bullying be developed. We agree that there is a need to provide clarity for schools, but this is best done through advice rather than legislation. I know that noble Lords expressed concerns in Committee that the advice that we currently outline to schools does not include a reference to the imbalance of power present in many instances of bullying. I confirm that we are working closely with the anti-bullying organisations, and can reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we will incorporate an appropriate reference to the imbalance of power in our advice to schools.
	In the light of previous debates in this House and subsequent discussions, we have identified how our advice could be further enhanced to address the concerns
	raised. We are creating an online fact sheet to inform schools about how they can support bullied children. This will include all the relevant information about and links to what steps can be taken to support children who are severely affected by bullying. It will incorporate information about in-school provision, SEN support and alternative provision for children severely affected by bullying. I hope that practical steps such as this will be welcomed.
	I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government have done a great deal to address the issues around bullying, but we can go further—by acknowledging more explicitly, for example, that severe bullying can have a clear impact on a child or young person’s mental health. Therefore, I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that we will make it clearer in Special Education Needs: Code of Practice, which is a critical document for schools and other bodies, that bullying is one thing that might lead to a child or young person having special educational needs and that, where it does so, schools must take appropriate action. This can involve support from external agencies, if needed, whether or not a child has an education, health and care plan. In addition, we will make appropriate cross-references between the bullying guidance and the SEN code of practice to ensure that schools are clear about this point.
	My noble friend spoke about children having depression caused by bullying. I believe that children suffering depression will be covered in the health conditions guidance. I shall take this matter away to make sure that that is clear.
	In Committee, I highlighted local authorities’ existing duty to arrange suitable education for children of compulsory school age who would not otherwise receive it. I want to reinforce the point that this duty applies to children who are not receiving education for any reason, including as a result of bullying. This existing duty does not require a certain threshold of absence before it is triggered and so does not require a child to miss school for three months, as the amendment would require. Indeed, all schools are already required by law to inform their local authority at agreed regular intervals of the name and address of pupils who have irregular attendance, or who have been absent from school without authorisation for 10 school days or more. We would expect a local authority to take action as soon as it became aware that a child was missing education, whether or not the child was on the roll of a school. Ultimately, the department could intervene if a local authority failed to discharge its duty or did so unreasonably.
	Local authorities also have existing duties to support young people to access post-16 education and training. Again, these duties would apply in respect of bullied children, but they are not prescriptive about the barriers to participation that a young person is facing.
	The amendment put forward by my noble friend would also require schools to provide Ofsted with an education plan for bullied children who are unable to attend school. Since September 2012, Ofsted has placed much greater focus on the use of alternative provision
	for individual pupils. Evidence gathered on how a school is meeting the needs of such pupils through any provision outside the school will feed into relevant judgments about the effectiveness of the school.
	I am grateful to my noble friend for her suggestion that we insert actual violence into the definition. I shall take this suggestion away and ask officials to consider how we might reflect this after further discussions with the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which are ongoing.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, spoke about good practice. ChildLine has made quite encouraging comments recently about practice in schools. The noble Baroness mentioned mentors. I know that many schools have a practice for when a child has absented themselves, bringing them gradually back into school and integrating them slowly. My noble friend Lady Brinton was right to point out that there are some children for whom that is not practicable and she asked about new provision. We welcome new applications for free schools for bullied children, but they will have to demonstrate the capacity to expand, the effectiveness of their provision, value for money and demand from local authorities.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Storey for commenting that bullying is sometimes a cry for help. This is one of the reasons why we do not wish to criminalise it any more than it may be already.
	As I said earlier, I do not believe that legislation will effectively address the legitimate concerns that underpin this amendment. However, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lady Brinton, for bringing her expertise to this debate and helping us to articulate and improve our approach to supporting children affected by bullying. I hope that my noble friend recognises that I have sought to address her concerns through developing and enhancing our advice to schools. I therefore urge her to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full and detailed response. Much of what he has said has gone a considerable way towards addressing not just my concerns and those of other noble Lords who have spoken but those of the APPG on Bullying, which has been looking at this issue for some time. The only outstanding issue, which cannot be tackled through legislation, is the monitoring of alternative provision to make sure that it is available across the country. Perhaps I can bother the Minister outside the Chamber in future to make sure that that happens.
	I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly brief debate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that one of the reasons for reiterating the importance of having a strategy nationally and in schools was to have all the information in one place. Part of the problem that schools have faced is that there have been lots of disparate bits of information that have not all been drawn together. We were aware of where there was a requirement but it was thought to be beneficial for schools to have something in one place to work their way through. I hope the cross-links that the Minister talked about—between SEN, the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance and the bullying code of practice—will go some way to doing that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 57D withdrawn.
	Clause 82: Local authority functions relating to children etc: intervention
	Amendment 57E
	 Moved by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
	57E: Clause 82, page 57, line 34, at end insert—
	“(4AD) For the avoidance of doubt, a direction made pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4A) as amended by subsection (4AA) shall not have the automatic effect of transferring the functions of the Director of Children’s Services and the Lead Member of Children’s Services in sections 18 and 19 of the Children’s Act 2004 to the Secretary of State’s nominee.
	(4AE) Before giving a direction to an authority pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4A), the Secretary of State must give the authority 14 days’ notice in writing of the proposed direction.
	(4AF) The proposed direction shall include a determination as to which functions shall be exercised by the Secretary of State or a person nominated by him and which functions shall be exercised by the authority, including those set out in subsection (4AD) above.
	(4AG) The authority may make written representations to the Secretary of State about the proposed direction within that period.
	(4AH) The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a direction under this section by notice in writing to the authority or authorities to which it was given.”

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hughes—who has asked me to speak on her behalf—and will also speak to Amendment 57F. These amendments seek to address the need for clarification and accountability in the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene in the delivery of children’s services by local authorities.
	Clause 82 amends the Education Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 1999 to the effect that when a Secretary of State intervenes in a local authority, usually in response to poor performance, any legislative provision applying to the local authority can be read as passing to a third party which has taken over the local authority’s functions and service delivery. Subsection (2) of Clause 82 applies these provisions to children’s services and subsection (3) to any best-value services across a local authority. I have to say at the outset that there is no disagreement with the need for intervention powers. It is absolutely necessary to protect services for local people.
	In Grand Committee, we sought to clarify the effect of the Government’s intentions here and the Minister assured us then, and subsequently in letters to my noble friend, that the intention was simply a helpful clarification of the effect of a direction under the Secretary of State’s last-resort power and did not expand those powers. She gave the example of clarifying for a family court in the case of a care order or adoption that the court can legally recognise the decisions and arrangements of a third party which has taken over the local authority’s functions, even though that third party will be exercising legal responsibilities and powers vested in local authorities.
	I am also grateful to the Minister that her officials met with my noble friend to discuss the clause in more detail. However, the Government’s clause still leaves
	some uncertainties about where the accountabilities lie following interventions. I apologise if this all gets rather technical, but it requires some further clarification. In essence, the clause as it stands leaves open the question as to where the statutory roles of the director of children’s services and lead member will reside after intervention and whether they, or the third party, are accountable for the way in which local authority functions are executed. Taken at face value, Clause 82(2), underpinning the roles of director of children’s services and lead member, could be read as transferring accountability to a third party. If so, the local authority would no longer be required to appoint to these positions and accountability would no longer rest with the local authority. The local authority would then effectively be severed from delivery of children’s services and accountability would reside with the Secretary of State and the third party.
	These amendments do two things. First, they insert a process in which a specific decision is taken about whether the roles of the director of children’s services and lead member transfer to a third party following a direction. Secondly, they allow a local authority to make representations to the Secretary of State as to which functions are transferred to that third party and which remain with the local authority. This is a belt-and-braces amendment to ensure there will be no loose ends or lack of clarity as to where accountability resides, and for what functions, following a direction. It is necessary because while the Minister in her examples has sought to reassure us that the clause is very limited in effect, in fact the wording is very wide in scope and potentially goes far beyond the specific cases of family courts considering care orders and adoptions.
	If the Minister is not minded to accept my amendment, perhaps she can explain why not and put on record the practical process that will take place, including discussion with a local authority, when a direction of this sort is under consideration. I look forward to hearing her response.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for giving me the opportunity to clarify the scope of the Secretary of State’s intervention powers under Section 497A(4A) of the Education Act 1996 and Section 15(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999, as amended by Clause 82. Using these powers in a failing local authority would be a serious step, and it is right that we are very clear how they might be used. I hope to be able to satisfy the noble Baroness’s desire for such clarity.
	Noble Lords will recall that these provisions are intended to put beyond doubt the Secretary of State’s existing powers to shift, in cases of very serious failure, the exercise of some of a local authority’s functions to a third party who will deliver them on behalf of the Secretary of State. Clause 82 clarifies the effect of the exercise of those existing powers—for example, in relation to care and adoption, and Ofsted’s powers to inspect the performance of the local authority’s functions—in whatever form they are delivered.
	I will address each of the points in turn, because I know, as the noble Baroness mentioned, that meetings have been held with my noble friend, and that there is
	a wish that this be put on the record. That is what I shall do, if noble Lords will be patient.
	Amendment 57E seeks assurance that a direction under subsection (4A) of Section 497A of the 1996 Act, as that section is amended by this Bill, would not automatically result in the transfer of the functions of director of, and lead member for, children’s services to the Secretary of State’s nominee. Amendment 57F does likewise for a direction under subsection (6)(a) of Section 15 of the 1999 Act.
	I can be quite clear that a direction under the provisions in question would not result in an automatic transfer of the role of director of children’s services or of lead member for children’s services, to a third party who had taken on a local authority’s functions. That is, in part, because Sections 18 and 19 of the Children Act 2004, which set out the requirements on local authorities to appoint a director of and lead member for children’s services, are not functions which may be subject to a direction under subsection (4A) of Section 497A of the 1996 Act.
	Following a subsection (4A) direction, the DCS and lead member would remain in place, although their responsibilities may be altered by agreement with the local authority as part of the transfer of functions from the local authority to the Secretary of State, or a nominee. The DCS and lead member would not, of course, exercise control over the local authority functions which had transferred to a third party following a direction under Section 497A.
	Although the powers under subsection (6)(a) of Section 15 of the 1999 Act apply to Sections 18 and 19 of the Children Act 2004, I again reassure noble Lords that a direction under subsection (6)(a) would not result in the automatic transfer of those functions. If the Secretary of State wanted to transfer those functions to himself or a nominee, the direction would need specifically to set that out. I also point out that the amendment to Section 15 of the 1999 Act in Clause 82 of the Bill does not alter that in any way.
	I also reassure the noble Baronesses that proposed new subsections (4AE), (4AG), (6E) and (6G) in their amendments, which are intended to ensure that the Secretary of State gives the local authority written notice of a proposed direction, are not necessary. Whenever in recent years we have contemplated issuing a direction, we have conducted initial discussions about its content beforehand. We have then formally given notice of our intention to issue a direction and formally invited representations from the local authority and other interested parties—I am glad that I am going to hand this to Hansard, so that they can make sure that the record is exactly as it is supposed to be. We will continue with the practice that I have just laid out.
	Further, were we looking to transfer the exercise of some of a local authority’s functions to a third party, as these powers envisage, we would of course have to follow the provisions of employment law in respect of any employees. That would require consultation and appropriate due diligence around the terms of the transfer, which could only be done together with the local authority. In any event, in all but the most urgent cases, common-law principles of procedural fairness and good governance would require that notice of a
	direction be given to a council and an opportunity be afforded for representations to be made before a direction is given.
	In relation to powers under the 1999 Act, under Section 15(9) and (10) of that Act the Secretary of State is required to allow the authority to make representations in advance of a direction, a practice we have followed in recent circumstances in relation to Doncaster. Furthermore in most cases, as noble Lords will know, government intervention in local authorities rests on the use of non-statutory improvement notices. Such improvement notices and the process that surrounds them, including engagement with Department for Education officials, serves as an effective mechanism for providing local authorities with fair warning about any proposed escalation to the use of statutory intervention powers. Although Sections 15(11) and (12) of the 1999 Act allow the Secretary of State to proceed straight to a direction where he considers it urgent enough, he must explain his reasoning to the authority in question, including why no prior consultation has taken place. I can provide additional reassurance that the dialogue between the Government and local authorities in intervention cases is always a two-way process.
	In relation to the format of statutory directions, let me again provide what I hope is sufficient reassurance to the noble Baroness. Statutory directions, by their very nature, must be absolutely crystal clear about the functions to which they relate. Indeed, a direction under either Section 497A of the 1996 Act or Section 15 of the 1999 Act would be legally defective and operationally ineffective if it did not set out the functions to be exercised by a third party, and who that third party should be, with sufficient clarity for it to be understood.
	Finally, I turn to proposed new subsection (4AH) in Amendment 57E and proposed new subsection (6H) in Amendment 57F, which concern the modification or withdrawal of directions. This is already provided for within Sections 497A(6) and 15(6) of the 1996 and 1999 Acts respectively, which set out that a direction may be indefinite or may operate for a specific period. In either case, the provisions allow the direction to be revoked earlier by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State wanted to modify a direction in any way he could simply issue another direction and, following the process I have already described, discuss this with the local authority concerned beforehand.
	These provisions are already in place in the 1996 and 1999 Acts. We are seeking to amend those provisions in some relatively small respects in the Bill to bring absolute clarity to their operation. I hope that in setting out clearly how they would operate, I have reassured the noble Baroness. The approach that her amendments propose is very much already covered in current legislation and public law principles, and adopted as custom and practice by this and previous Governments. I very much hope that I have managed to cover all the noble Baroness’s concerns, that all is now satisfactorily on the record and that she is content to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: I thank the Minister very much for that and I, too, will probably want to take a little time and dwell on all that in Hansard. For the moment, I am grateful to her for putting that information on the record and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 57E withdrawn.
	Amendment 57F not moved.
	Amendment 57G
	 Moved by Lord Nash
	57G: After Clause 82, insert the following new Clause—
	“Application of suspension etc powers to establishments and agencies in England
	(1) In section 14A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (power of Welsh Ministers to suspend registration of person in respect of establishment or agency), in subsection (1)—
	(a) for “Welsh Ministers” substitute “registration authority”, and
	(b) omit “for which the Welsh Ministers are the registration authority”.
	(2) In subsection (2) of that section, for “Welsh Ministers give” substitute “registration authority gives”.
	(3) In section 15(4A) of that Act (duty of Welsh Ministers to give notice of decision to grant application for cancellation or variation of suspension)—
	(a) for “Welsh Ministers decide” substitute “registration authority decides”,
	(b) for “they” substitute “it”, and
	(c) for “their” substitute “its”.
	(4) In section 20B of that Act (urgent procedure for suspension or variation etc: Wales), in the heading omit “: Wales”.
	(5) In subsection (1) of that section—
	(a) in paragraph (a) omit “for which the Welsh Ministers are the registration authority”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b)—
	(i) for “Welsh Ministers have” substitute “registration authority has”, and
	(ii) for “they act” substitute “it acts”.
	(6) In subsection (2) of that section, for “Welsh Ministers” in both places substitute “registration authority”.
	(7) In subsection (4)(b) of that section, for “Welsh Ministers’” substitute “registration authority’s”.”

Lord Nash: My Lords, Amendments 57G and 64ZA complement those which I introduced in Committee to pave the way for the introduction of a new framework for the regulation and inspection of children’s homes. We have worked very closely with Ofsted on how the inspection of children’s homes should be improved.
	Amendment 57G is intended to equip Oftsed with the powers required to make a prompt and timely intervention when it identifies serious concerns about the care of children. The amendment would extend provisions in the Care Standards Act that already operate in Wales to England to allow Ofsted to suspend a person’s registration in relation to a setting caring for children that is regulated under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act. This means a criminal offence would be committed if a registered person continued to operate the setting while their registration was suspended.
	While this power could apply to any setting regulated by Ofsted under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act, for example a fostering service, we expect that it would be used almost always in relation to children’s homes, where Ofsted assesses that there is a need for urgent action to suspend a person’s registration while concerns about a home’s care are investigated.
	At present, in England, if there is a serious incident in a home, Ofsted has the power only to cancel a person’s registration. This amendment would enable Ofsted to take action more quickly in cases where this is needed. For example, where there are allegations of abuse in a home, it might be appropriate to suspend a registration while these are being investigated.
	Both we and Ofsted recognise that a power to suspend a person’s registration is a draconian one. We expect that moves to suspend registration would happen only on rare occasions where there were very serious concerns. Ofsted would take this action only if, following consideration of other enforcement options, it was judged to be necessary given the specific circumstances of the case.
	Ofsted is committed to exercising this power in a fair and proportionate way. For example, we would expect inspectors, as far as is reasonably practicable, to contact a provider shortly before delivering a suspension notice. This contact would make it clear that the suspension would not formally start until the notice had been properly and formally served.
	Ofsted already has a power to suspend early years services under the Childcare Act 2006. There is a protocol between Ofsted and the Care Standards Tribunal to expedite appeals against suspension notices by early years providers to ensure early judicial scrutiny of inspectors’ actions in these urgent and extreme situations. Ofsted expects to enter into a similar protocol with the tribunal concerning the new urgent suspension power that this amendment would introduce. Discussions about this are planned between Ofsted and the tribunal in the near future.
	I hope that noble Lords will support this important amendment to introduce a new safeguard for vulnerable children so that Ofsted inspectors can take timely and rigorous enforcement action in those rare instances where it is required. I beg to move.
	Amendment 57G agreed.
	Amendment 58
	 Moved by Baroness Massey of Darwen
	58: After Clause 82, insert the following new Clause—
	“Local authority’s duty to investigate: work with families
	In section 47 of the Children Act 1989 after subsection (8) insert—
	“(8A) Where, as a result of complying with this section, a local authority conclude that a child may need to become looked after in order to safeguard and promote their welfare, the local authority must, unless emergency action is required, seek to identify and consider the willingness and suitability of any relative, friend of other person connected with the child, to care for them as an alternative to them becoming looked after by unrelated carers.””

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendments 58 and 59 and leave Amendment 63 to my noble friend Lady Drake. I thank the Minister and his colleagues and team for all their efforts, letters and meetings on the issue of family and friends carers.
	We discussed the benefits of children being raised with family or friends at some length in Committee. All I would say here is that there is clear evidence that children who cannot live with their parents and who live with family or friends do significantly better both socially and academically than those who live in other forms of care.
	Local authorities are still not, as far as I know, conforming to the rules that they should. There is little support from local authorities. Sometimes there is misinformation. This issue will not go away. I hope that the Minister will—I know that he will—take on board that family and friends carers deserve and need help and that we should listen to their concerns. I beg to move.

Baroness Drake: My Lords, I am conscious of the late hour, but I rise to speak to Amendment 63, which addresses the need of kinship carers and their children by seeking to prevent a situation where the carer loses their job. We are addressing a care community of an estimated 300,000 children—not a minor group. Family members step in to avoid them being taken into care. Kinship care, as we know, is by far the most common way of providing permanence and stability for children who can no longer live with their parents.
	We have rehearsed these arguments many times. Yet, we know, in spite of the key role that kinship carers play, that they get too little help. As a society we depend on kinship carers to protect so many vulnerable children, but we reciprocate by giving them limited support. Yet the children being raised with kinship carers can have experienced similar adversities to those in the care system; they have been through trauma or tragedy, they have multiple needs and they need time to settle with their carers, who themselves are required to attend a plethora of meetings related to the children’s needs.
	However, as we know, those carers have no statutory right to any form of adjustment leave to settle the children. With no give in the employment system, many kinship carers are forced to give up work in order to do what is right for the children. The aim of this amendment is to bring kinship carers into employment protection through a statutory entitlement to a period of unpaid adjustment leave when taking on the care of the child. Not only in this Bill but in other recent Bills we have extended or are extending the rights to statutory leave of other carers and approved adopters, but consistently we give little or no statutory support to kinship carers and the key role that they play.
	We see an incongruity in the Government’s position. In the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, when again the arguments about the key role of kinship carers were rehearsed, the Government, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Freud, accepted that friends and kinship carers undertook a valuable role in protecting vulnerable children, which often requires them to give
	up employment, and agreed that kinship carers in receipt of benefits should be exempt from work conditionality for 12 months. However, when it comes to employment protection and continued labour market participation by kinship carers, we see the incongruity. It would not always be necessary for a kinship carer to lose their job if they had a period of adjustment leave, and many would remain in the labour market if they had such leave, which may well improve the life outcomes for them and their children. So we face a situation where the Government recognise the challenges facing kinship carers in the welfare system but are reluctant to do so in the employment system. In effect, the DWP understood the issue and acted, but BIS remains reluctant.
	I acknowledge that in Committee on 22 November the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, recognised the extremely valuable contribution made by family and friends carers in caring for children who cannot live with their parents, and I acknowledge that the Government have advised that the department will conduct research into the labour market attachment of kinship carers. The helpful letter of 23 January from the noble Viscount again acknowledges the important role played by these carers, and confirms that he is,
	“keen to ensure that their needs are considered as soon as possible”.
	However, the problems that I have referred to—albeit briefly, because of time—exist now, and I fear that following the passage of the Bill they may fall into the long grass. I am anxious that “as soon as possible” should not be a long timeline. The noble Viscount also indicated in his letter that the information required for the broader review of the shared parental leave and pay provisions to which he had committed is unlikely to be available until 2018, but that he wishes to work to a much earlier timeline for considering the needs of family and friends carers for adjustment leave.
	I have three questions for the Minister. Am I correct in my understanding of the letter of 23 January that the Government wish to work to a much speedier timeline? Could the Minister give an indication of how soon he thinks the issue of labour market attachment and adjustment leave for kinship carers can be addressed? Notwithstanding the urgent need for adjustment leave provision for kinship carers, could he also agree to include family and friends carers in the broader review of parental leave and pay provisions that the Government have committed to? This would allow for a more holistic and comprehensive review of childcare leave provisions. To exclude family and friends carers from that wider review would leave a key and potentially growing area of caring for children—kinship care—untouched and unreviewed. I look forward to a positive reply from the Minister to those three questions.
	I shall end by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, who put it so well in Committee when she said that,
	“it is, frankly, almost embarrassing to think about the disadvantage that kinship carers suffer when they take on this responsibility and often—most likely, I would say—produce much better results for those children”.—[ Official Report , 20/11/13; col. GC 450.]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, I hope it has been very clear that this side of the House strongly supports the main thrust of the measures in this part of the Bill in relation to parental leave, and we do not want to do anything to withhold any form of approval for what is happening. We have tried to express our support for that. The amendments tabled today are a reflection of two things. First, that the broad thrust of the way in which the Government have taken forward this agenda is exactly as we would like to see it. Indeed, I might almost say that they have done a little bit more than we would have considered had we been in power and had to take forward this responsibility. Secondly, in so doing they have thrown into sharp relief a number of areas in which measures could be taken which would level up kinship carers to the position that is now being adopted for parental leave.
	I sympathise with the Minister responding to the debate, but we should reflect on the fact that, during the passage of the Bill, we have moved from the original position we found ourselves in when we opened up discussions on this part, which was that nothing could be done in this area, to a situation where a number of reviews and considerations of particular issues are now taking place. The purpose of these amendments is to invite the Minister to reflect upon and read into the record the decisions that he has been able to reach in relation to kinship and friendship care, some of which were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Drake, and to ask him whether he will use this opportunity to reflect a little more on the gaps that remain.
	I do not think it would require a lot to do the sort of work required, but the important point, as has just been said, is to get some sense of the timescale, so that those who might not be given first priority this time round have something to look forward to so that they can work towards a better achievement of the objectives that they want, particularly in the areas that we have just been talking about.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I intend to keep my remarks as brief as possible while aiming to respond effectively to the substance of the amendments.
	Noble Lords will remember our discussions on this very important area of support for family and friends carers during Grand Committee. I welcome this debate and reaffirm our commitment to supporting kinship and friendship care. I appreciate the broad support for these measures from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and Members opposite. I commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Drake, on their tireless work in this area.
	Where family and friends carer policies are applied effectively, the aims expressed in Amendments 58 and 59 will already be met. For this reason, the Government have in place a programme of work to improve the practice of professionals in this area. It is our belief that the key issue in this area is improving quality of practice on the ground rather than changing the legislation which already exists for this group of carers.
	First, on Amendment 58, it is already a requirement of the Children Act 1989 that local authorities should support the upbringing of children by their families wherever possible if the child cannot return to live with the birth parents and if it is the most appropriate way to safeguard and promote their welfare. This legislative position is re-enforced by Volume 1 of the Children Act 1989 statutory guidance, which outlines that the local authority should have,
	“considered family members and friends as potential carers at each stage of its decision making”.
	That guidance is currently being revised to reflect the legislative changes in this Bill and to align it with the new Public Law Outline. The revised version will include strengthened content on good pre-proceedings practice and will re-emphasise the importance of early work with families. It will also provide information on the key elements of good pre-proceedings practice and the use of family group conferences.
	I know that officials in the Department for Education have been in regular contact with interested parties, including the Family Rights Group, during the drafting of this guidance and have listened carefully to their concerns. A working group made up of expert practitioners, including directors of children’s services and social workers, has also been formed to act as a critical friend to the department and comment on early drafts. The guidance will be published for public consultation in mid-February and we would welcome any further views from noble Lords as part of that process.
	The Government remain committed to the use of interventions at the pre-proceedings stage, which is why we are now funding the rollout of an accreditation scheme of family group conferences and the further use of this service at the pre-proceedings stage. Practice in this area will be monitored and inspected by Ofsted under the new single inspection framework for children’s services, which is designed to assess local authority practice and decision-making at all stages of a child’s journey.
	On Amendment 59, we have discussed at length the valuable contribution of family and friends carers and it was with that in mind that in March 2011 we issued statutory guidance for local authorities on families and friends who are carers. That guidance makes it clear that wider family members should receive appropriate support to bring up a child in their care, regardless of whether those children are looked after by a local authority or not:
	“The range and level of family support services which may be provided under section 17 is wide … As well as practical support, family and friends carers may need advice, guidance or counselling about how to manage issues such as those arising from contact or from caring for children with emotional or behavioural difficulties due to their earlier experiences. Such services may be provided by local authorities to support both formal and informal family and friends care arrangements”.
	Therefore, non-looked-after children can already be included in such care arrangements under Section 17 of the 1989 Act. The 1989 Act does not impose a limit on the amount of support which may be provided under that section.
	As I mentioned earlier, we are aware that the quality and quantity of local authority policies is not always at the level it should be. That is why we currently have
	a programme of work to reduce the variation in practice within and across local authorities. The Department for Education will continue to look at the barriers to implementing the policies and will be looking to take forward work that clarifies the role of the local authority and the importance of good support systems for this group of carers.
	We understand that many family and friends carers could do with extra help with the parenting of these children, particularly when dealing with children with behavioural problems. That is why the Department for Education continues to fund initiatives like the Keep programme, which is a group programme which provides family and friends carers and mainstream foster carers with specialist training and support.
	While we agree that support and services are sometimes not of the quality that they should be for family and friends carers, we feel that improvements need to be made not by changing current legislation but, as I said earlier, by improving practice on the ground. We will improve the lives of these dedicated and inspirational carers by empowering them to have the information they need to ask for services when they need them and by ensuring that each local authority is aware of their responsibility and has the tools to deliver it. That is exactly what our current programme of work aims to accomplish.
	Finally, on Amendment 63, I fully understand the sentiment behind what is proposed, but it is essential that we take the time fully to understand how becoming a kinship or friendship carer affects an individual’s labour market attachment before proposing policy interventions. For this reason, I announced in Grand Committee that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will lead a research project into those issues. Officials met recently with the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Drake, and representatives from a number of interested organisations such as Grandparents Plus and the Family Rights Group to discuss these issues, and I know that the officials found that very useful.
	We will hold a further research scoping event for relevant stakeholders in the coming weeks to gain a fuller understanding of the issues and research challenges and to harness the extensive knowledge and expertise of these organisations. I hope that we will continue to build on these productive discussions and that noble Lords will encourage interested parties to attend the scoping event. It is essential that we properly understand the labour market issues faced by these individuals before deciding whether further policy interventions aimed at strengthening labour market attachment may be the most effective intervention. The research that I have outlined will help government to gain a better understanding of the evidence base, which is the important first step that is needed.
	I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised at least three questions, and I will write to her to answer them. However, on the point about timing, this is a very urgent matter, but it will depend on the scoping nature of that research. I will write to her on that point, but I want to clarify that we on this side regard this as an urgent matter and will endeavour to move as fast as we possibly can.
	In the mean time, I hope that I have given noble Lords sufficient reassurance that the Government are committed to supporting family and friends carers. I therefore urge the noble Baronesses to withdraw their amendments.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his complete response. I appreciate that all the questions cannot be answered this evening. My noble friend and I look forward to further correspondence and to receiving further information about the review.
	Amendment 58 withdrawn.
	Amendment 59 not moved.
	Amendment 59ZA
	 Moved by Baroness Northover
	59ZA: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
	“Provision of free school lunches
	(1) The Education Act 1996 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 512ZB (provision of free school lunches and milk at maintained schools)—
	(a) in subsection (2)(a) after “subsection (4)” insert “or (4A) (or both)”, and
	(b) after subsection (4) insert—
	“(4A) A person is within this subsection if the person—
	(a) is a registered pupil at a maintained school or pupil referral unit in England, and
	(b) is in reception, year 1, year 2 or any other prescribed year group at the school.
	(4B) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the following to be treated as persons within subsection (4A)—
	(a) registered pupils, or any description of registered pupils, at a maintained nursery school in England;
	(b) children, or any description of children, who receive relevant funded early years education, or any description of such education, in England.
	(4C) In subsection (4A)—
	“maintained school” means—
	(a) a community, foundation or voluntary school, or
	(b) a community or foundation special school;
	“reception” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 5;
	“year 1” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 6;
	“year 2” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 7;
	“year group” means a group of children at a school the majority of whom will, in a particular school year, attain the same age.”;
	(c) in subsection (5), after ““prescribed”” insert “, “relevant funded early years education””.
	(3) After section 512A insert—
	“512B Provision of school lunches: Academies
	(1) Academy arrangements in relation to an Academy school or an alternative provision Academy must include provision imposing obligations on the proprietor that are equivalent to the school lunches obligations.
	(2) “The school lunches obligations” are the obligations imposed in relation to maintained schools and pupil referral units in England by—
	(a) section 512(3) (provision of school lunches on request), and
	(b) section 512ZB(1) (provision of free school lunches to eligible persons).
	(3) Academy arrangements in relation to an Academy (other than a 16 to 19 Academy) that are entered into before the date on which section (Provision of free school lunches)(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 comes into force are to be treated as if they included the provision required by subsection (1), to the extent that they do not otherwise include such provision.”

Baroness Northover: My Lords, in September last year the Government announced their intention that all children attending state-funded schools in England in reception, year 1 or year 2 should be offered a free school lunch. Amendment 59ZA places a duty on all such schools to provide lunches to those children and also provides a power for the Secretary of State for Education to extend that provision to other age groups by order, subject to decisions by future Governments and the will of Parliament.
	We know from pilot schemes in Durham and Newham, which commenced under the previous Government in 2009 and concluded under this one in 2011, that the provision of universal free school meals has the potential to deliver considerable benefits for children, and particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
	One of the most striking positive effects demonstrated by the pilots was the impact of universal free school meal provision on educational outcomes. Independent evaluation showed that pupils were on average two months ahead of their peers in English and maths and that these improvements were most marked among children from less affluent families. Noble Lords may wish to note that these improvements were not reflected in a third pilot area, where free school meal entitlement was extended to more pupils but not offered to all children.
	Other benefits demonstrated by the pilots included higher take-up rates of free school meals, including among that the group of pupils who had previously been eligible for a free school meal but had not taken one. This is important: we know, due in large part to the good work done under the previous Government, that school meals are far more likely to meet good nutritional standards than the packed lunches that children bring to school. Offering all infants a healthy lunch will allow schools to play their part in helping children to develop long-term healthy eating behaviours.
	Noble Lords will also be interested to know that the pilots demonstrated certain social benefits. Universal free school meals help to engender a culture where children sit down to eat with classmates and teachers in a civilised environment. Shared mealtimes are a natural training ground for learning to talk, behave, take turns, be polite and share. The pilots showed that a universal approach was valued by parents and staff for building a school community and sense of cohesion and increasing equality and fairness.
	We will support schools in introducing this. In his autumn Statement my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that over a billion pounds of new revenue funding would be allocated to this policy between 2014 and 2016. In addition, the Government confirmed that £150 million pounds of capital funding would be provided by the Department for Education in 2014-15 to improve kitchen and dining facilities in schools.
	Subsequently, the Department for Education has confirmed more details of how this funding will be allocated, including that special provision will be made in 2014-15 to assist small schools to implement this policy. The department will also, shortly, announce details of a comprehensive package of implementation support and advice to be targeted at schools that might be expected to find delivering this policy most challenging.
	Head teachers need to know that the Government are as committed to this policy as we expect them to be. That is why we have concluded that this amendment is necessary to provide both certainty and confidence, so that head teachers can plan ahead.
	This policy has been widely welcomed across the school food sector, by trade unions and by other stakeholders, including the Children’s Society. I appreciate the favourable comments from the noble Baroness opposite and from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the Cross Benches. We spoke to them about introducing the amendment at this stage and we appreciate their support in this. I am very pleased to put this amendment forward. I beg to move.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Institute for Food, Brain and Behaviour. I entirely accept what the Minister said about the value of nutrition. For two or three years we have conducted work in a secondary school in Dagenham. That work is about to be published and shows the value of correct nutrition on not just the educational awareness of children but also on their behaviour. We would be very happy to share this research with the Minister and her officials.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I warmly welcome the amendment and the Minister has underlined the case for it. I have two questions. What will be done to monitor the effects of the new provisions with a view to considering whether to extend them to other age groups, as the proposed new clause would allow, and what criteria will be used in considering whether to extend them? Will the Minister explain what the implications will be for the pupil premium, because eligibility for the funding of it is tied to free school meal eligibility, and if free school meal eligibility is being extended in this way does this mean that the pupil premium will also be extended?

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I welcome the amendment and welcome the coalition, belatedly, to the table of the free school meals cause.
	As I told the Minister the other day, I am an inaugural member of the School Food Trust, set up by Labour after Jamie Oliver’s turkey Twizzler scandal. Therefore, I do not need to be persuaded of the importance of this announcement. When I was thinking how I might respond to this debate, I was initially tempted to run back through the history of this initiative, not least the Government’s early decision to cut the funding of the School Food Trust and the associated rollout of the nutritional standards. However, in the circumstances I felt that this was rather churlish. However
	the transformation of policy came about, it is absolutely the right thing to do. I agree with the Minister that it will bring health, educational and social benefits to this group of children. It will, I hope, teach them good eating habits which will stay with them and encourage them to continue eating nutritional school lunches in later years. It will also provide considerable savings to hard-pressed families who would otherwise have to pay for these meals.
	The challenge now is to make sure that the policy is implemented successfully for September, and I very much hope that the Children’s Food Trust is able to play a major role in assisting that rollout. There will obviously be different challenges for different schools to adapt their kitchens and dining spaces to meet the new demand. I hope that schools, and particularly head teachers, embrace this challenge positively and do not try to cut corners. The school lunch has the capacity to be at the heart of the school’s community and brings a wealth of other benefits as well. I very much hope that in a short period the policy will justify itself. I am pleased that the amendment allows scope for extending the age group via secondary regulation in due course, and I am pleased to support the amendment.

Baroness Northover: I thank noble Lords for their welcome for this proposal. I look forward to hearing the report from Dagenham. The department will be very interested in that trial. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that pupil premium funding will not be affected by the introduction of universal school meals for infant pupils. In particular, the funding for the next financial year 2014-15 is informed by school census data collected in the January 2014 school census. This census is taking place prior to the introduction of universal infant free school meals. In subsequent years, we will be gathering the same data in the school census on the number of pupils whose families are in receipt of the relevant benefits that currently entitle the children to a free school meal. This information will be used to allocate pupil premium funding, as well as other deprivation-related school funding.
	In terms of evaluating the impact of this policy, it will obviously be carefully monitored. The universal free school meals pilot provided a full and compelling evaluation of the benefits and challenges of the policy, as I have just laid out. We will be measuring the take-up of lunches via the school census and are sure that others will want to measure the specific benefits arising from this policy.
	There are currently no plans to extend the universal free school meals eligibility to further age groups. It will be for future Governments to decide whether they want to do so. However, we thought that it was important, while we were asking Parliament to consider legislating on the principle of this, to include an enabling power to give future Governments the flexibility to extend the policy using secondary rather than primary legislation. This of course will still be subject to the will of Parliament.
	I think that I have covered everything, although I am not sure whether I have covered all the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. If I have
	not, then, given the hour, I will write to noble Lords. Once again, I thank your Lordships very much for their welcome of this policy.
	Amendment 59ZA agreed.
	Amendment 59A
	 Moved by Baroness Massey of Darwen
	59A: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
	“Independence of the Children’s Commissioner
	In Schedule 1 to the Children Act 2004, in paragraph 1 (status) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
	“(3) The Secretary of State shall not undermine the Children’s Commissioner’s independence and shall ensure that the Children’s Commissioner is under as few constraints as reasonably possible in determining—
	(a) the Commissioner’s activities,
	(b) the Commissioner’s timetables, and
	(c) the Commissioner’s priorities.””

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, in moving Amendment 59A, I also wish to support Amendments 59B and 59F, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will mainly speak. I want to make three very quick points about the Children’s Commissioner. One is about human rights, one is about the commissioner’s powers and one is about his appointment.
	I thank the Minister and his team for investigating the concerns expressed in Committee and for his helpful and clear letter. We are particularly grateful that the Government have now published the framework agreement between the Department for Education and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
	The introduction of that framework contains a statement on the independence of the Children’s Commissioner and the overarching principles. However, neither the framework nor the Minister’s letter contain the UN affirmation that national human rights institutions such as the Office of the Children’s Commissioner should clearly state that members and staff of such bodies,
	“will not receive instructions from government ministers or other public officials, directly or indirectly”.
	I do not see the issue of prohibition directly spelled out in the letter or the framework.
	Secondly, I realise that the commissioner still does not have the power under the Human Rights Act to deliver on individual cases. I understand the reason for that: it would be an impossible task. However, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, with which I agree, seeks to draw attention to particular groups with specific problems—for example, children in custody, unaccompanied migrants and trafficked children. In other words, it is about children who are living without their parents—a particularly vulnerable group. I shall leave the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to elaborate on that but I have my own concerns.
	My third concern relates to the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner. I hope that the appointment will be independent of political bias. It requires someone who has strong experience of working with children and children’s services in the voluntary sector and who understands the wide scope involved in dealing with all kinds of children, particularly vulnerable children,
	at a national and local level. The person who is appointed, whoever he or she might be, must command the respect of the children’s sector. I know that Parliament, children’s charities and children’s services will follow this appointment keenly to ensure that they are fulfilling all the demands that they have to fulfil. I beg to move.

Lord Ramsbotham: I am grateful to the Minister for his letters and the draft framework agreement in which I note that the Children’s Commissioner is classified as a non-departmental public body and that it is for the commissioner to determine what activities to undertake in carrying out his or her primary function. I am therefore glad to see that the provisions that currently allow the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner’s work are to be repealed but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I do not feel completely confident about the appointment process. That is why I have added my name to her Amendment 59A, to which she has spoken so comprehensively.
	Turning to my Amendments 59B and 59F, the aim of Amendment 59B is twofold. First, it is to ensure that the expectation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that all children’s commissioners shall have the power to bring and intervene in court cases to ensure that children’s rights are respected is made explicit in the Bill. Legal cases can be complex, lengthy, expensive, intimidating and distressing for children who are often unable or unwilling to take action themselves. In addition, courts are likely to be even less accessible to children following cuts to legal aid and proposals for further reform of legal aid and judicial review.
	The second purpose is to put the commissioner on an equal footing with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in being able to bring cases under the main legal protection for children in this country, the Human Rights Act. It should not be presumed that the commissioner will automatically take up every case but it will be up to him or her to decide which ones to pursue.
	Amendment 59F would expand on the list of those groups of children currently under the remit of the Office for the Children’s Rights Director to whom the Children’s Commissioner must provide advice and assistance. At present, Clause 86 prohibits the commissioner from providing advice and assistance to children living away from home or receiving social care who are not within the group defined in Clause 93. As I have seen all too often, there is considerable inconsistency in how children in custody or migrant children are looked after by those responsible for them. I have not had the same practical experience of trafficked children but, in view of their vulnerability and possible legal needs, it would be invidious to leave them out of this proposed addition.
	Finally, more generally, as the Bill has progressed—and particularly in relation to the best endeavours rather than duties that the Government expect to be sufficient demand on local authorities and others to ensure delivery of EHC plans and other SEN provision—I see the need for an informed, independent monitor to ensure that those best endeavours are resulting in what the Government expect. As I have said previously, the code of practice is full of “musts” without being
	specific about how a “must” is to be implemented or overseen. I suggest that the role of overseer of best endeavours and musts is a natural addition to the responsibility of the Children’s Commissioner, being entirely in line with new Sections 2(1) and 2(3)(a) of the Children Act set out in Clause 86. New Section 2(1) states:
	“The Children’s Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England”.
	New Section 2(3)(a) states:
	“In the discharge of the primary function the Children’s Commissioner may, in particular … advise persons excising functions or engaged in activities affecting children on how to act compatibly with the rights of children”.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I rise partly to support my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but primarily to use the opportunity to thank the Minister for listening to what was said in Grand Committee and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—up to a point. With regard to Amendment 59C, I fear that we are still talking past each other. The Joint Committee on Human Rights amendment, which I moved in Grand Committee, was not intended to provide an exhaustive definition of children’s rights, as the noble Lord suggested in his letter to my noble friends Lady Hughes and Lady Jones on 22 January. The purpose was to include the UNCRC rights explicitly in the statutory definition of children’s rights for the purposes of defining the Children’s Commissioner’s primary functions. But I do not wish to be churlish, and therefore I welcome this unexpected concession.
	I also strongly welcome the publication before Report of the updated framework agreement between the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the department, and even more because it incorporates the changes recommended by the JCHR and includes a clear statement of the commissioner’s independence. I welcome, too, the amendments designed to strengthen children’s participation.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to go one step further, as asked for by my noble friend and the noble Lord, and strengthen the powers and independence of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner just that little bit more.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support Amendment 59A and I also strongly support Amendments 59B and 59F. I address this from the viewpoint of the children themselves. Children and young people care about the independence of the Children’s Commissioner and support the proposal to prevent any interference by government as set out in Amendment 59A.
	In a briefing put together by young people in partnership with Save the Children, they say quite rightly that the commissioner is for them and that it is important that the Government listen to their views on the issue of independence. The young people understand the importance of the commissioner being free to do his job properly. In particular, they are worried about future Governments interfering in the commissioner’s work. Mohamed, aged 16, said:
	“If the Commissioner’s full independence is not clearly set in stone then a new Government would be able to change its mind … If it’s not [written down in law] it could change in a few years-time. Even if the Children’s Commissioner has the freedom now to do what they think is right, there’s no guarantee it wouldn’t change”.
	So young people are concerned that without this amendment, children may think that the commissioner is not a proper champion of their views and rights, and they may not put their trust in the commissioner.
	Young people say that without a fully independent champion, children could grow up to feel disengaged from their community and local and national politics. Najib, aged 12, said:
	“If the children’s commissioner isn’t completely independent then young people will feel like they don’t have a voice. When they grow up they may not have the confidence to speak out and join in as they’ve felt that no one has listened to them when they were growing up”.
	I hope very much that the Minister will consider young people’s views on this issue and I very much support the proposal brought forward on this by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.

Lord Nash: I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey, Lady Lister and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for their contributions. I will speak to the government amendments in more detail shortly, but I would first like to respond to Amendment 59A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and Amendments 59B and 59F tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for focusing our attention on the key issue of the independence of the Children’s Commissioner. As I stressed during the debate in Committee, in order for the Children’s Commissioner to have credibility with children and children’s organisations, and to meet international standards, we fully recognise that the commissioner needs to be—and be seen to be—acting independently from government. That is why we are removing a number of provisions in the existing legislation that call into question the commissioner’s independence, as recommended by John Dunford following his review. As a result, there is nothing in the legislation that allows the Government to determine what the commissioner’s priorities are, what activities he or she will undertake, or what timescales he or she will work to—these are all matters for the commissioner.
	During the debates in Committee, both here and in the other place, the Minister for Children and Families and I provided reassurances on the process for appointing the commissioner, and on providing the commissioner with a sufficient budget. I am happy to repeat them again today. The Government fully recognise the need for the commissioner to be free from any political interference in carrying out his or her functions, and the arrangements in place to appoint the commissioner and provide him or her with a sufficient budget will ensure that this is the case.
	I would like to reassure noble Lords that the commissioner’s appointment will be governed by the code of practice published by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which ensures that such appointments are made on the basis of merit, following a fair and open recruitment process. This ensures that
	only those candidates judged by the OCPA recruitment panel to be “appointable” can be put forward for Ministers’ consideration. Further, we have given commitments that Parliament will be provided with an opportunity to comment on the job description and person specification before the post is advertised, and an opportunity to hold a pre-appointment hearing before the appointment is confirmed.
	On the framework agreement, as requested by noble Lords in Committee, I have made available a draft of the revised framework agreement that sets out the relationship between the commissioner and the Department for Education. As noble Lords will note, the revised framework agreement includes clear statements about the commissioner’s independence from government.
	Noble Lords will also note that, as requested by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the draft framework agreement includes changes that mirror those made to the framework agreement between the Equality and Human Rights Commission and its sponsor department—changes that seek to ensure that the impact of public sector efficiency controls do not unreasonably constrain the commissioner’s independence.
	I now turn to Amendment 59B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which seeks to add, “initiating and intervening in legal proceedings”, to the non-exhaustive list of activities that the commissioner may undertake in the exercise of his or her primary function, as set out in proposed new Section 2(3) of the Children Act 2004, inserted by Clause 86. During the debates in Committee, I said that initiating or intervening in legal proceedings was, in the Government’s view, implicit within the commissioner’s primary function. The commissioner has intervened in legal proceedings on a number of occasions under the current legislation, and there is nothing in this Bill that changes that position.
	As now, if the Office of the Children’s Commissioner wanted to bring legal proceedings, it would fall to the judge in the individual case to determine whether the commissioner had “sufficient interest” in the matter. However, the fact that the Children’s Commissioner will have a statutory role to promote and protect children’s rights, suggests that the commissioner would have a sufficient interest in any matter before the courts where children’s rights were involved. The question is not, therefore, whether it is possible for the commissioner to initiate or intervene in legal proceedings, but whether it is desirable to emphasise this aspect of the commissioner’s remit explicitly on the face of the Bill.
	There are a number of reasons why I do not wish to do that. First, we have avoided adding to the list, in proposed new Section 2(3), of activities that are already implicit within the commissioner’s primary function. Secondly, while I agree that the commissioner should, in certain circumstances, be able to bring matters before the courts, I share John Dunford’s view that a decision by the Children’s Commissioner to initiate legal proceedings should not be taken lightly. We would expect any commissioner to use this power sparingly, given the range of functions and issues in which the commissioner is likely to take an interest, and in the light of his or her responsibility to make effective use of public funding.

Lord Ramsbotham: I am sorry to delay proceedings, but can the Minister, in the light of what he has just said, assure me that an incoming commissioner will at least be made aware of that provision, and that the assurance that he has just given to the House will be repeated in that briefing?

Lord Nash: I am delighted to give that assurance to the noble Lord. Thirdly, including an explicit reference to initiating and intervening in legal proceedings would raise expectations that the commissioner will take up legal challenges on behalf of any individual or group who brings a matter to the commissioner’s attention. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is clearly not resourced to operate in that way, and it could end up wasting time defending decisions not to take up particular cases.
	I turn now to Amendment 59F, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which would add categories of children—–namely, children in custody, children who have been trafficked and unaccompanied migrant children—to the definition at new Section 8A, which is inserted by Clause 93. In the Government’s view, it is not possible to define precisely in legislation every interaction that the commissioner and his or her staff might have with children; nor would we want to. What the legislation seeks to do, therefore, is to put down some clear markers that are designed to achieve particular objectives.
	First, as noble Lords will be aware, there is a provision that prevents the commissioner investigating individual cases. This is specifically to avoid the commissioner getting swamped with individual casework at the expense of his or her strategic role. John Dunford’s report was clear that where commissioners had taken on a full ombudsman’s role, it had reduced their impact.
	Secondly, as recommended by John Dunford, we have included provisions in the legislation that ensure, as far as possible, that the support provided to children within the Children’s Rights Director’s remit can and will continue under the new arrangements. Beyond that, we do not wish to try to enshrine in legislation what level of support the commissioner should provide to individual children who may contact the commissioner or his or her staff. It is inevitable, as now, that children will contact the commissioner through, for example, the OCC’s website. Where they do, we of course expect the commissioner to offer appropriate help.
	In many cases, that help would involve signposting the child to information or support. In others, it would involve helping the child to access an existing complaints or advocacy service, while in other cases it may involve the commissioner providing support that is similar to the “advice and assistance” function that the CRD currently provides. Ultimately, if the commissioner felt that the child’s case highlighted a matter of wider strategic importance, he or she could conduct an investigation into that issue. Our view, therefore, is that it should be for the commissioner to determine what level of support to provide to children when they approach him or her. That is why we do not wish to describe how the commissioner should interact with children in legislation, beyond the two exceptions mentioned earlier.
	I do not therefore believe that it is necessary to extend the definition at Section 8A to include the groups of children that the noble Lord proposes. The commissioner will have wide-ranging functions and powers to give him or her the flexibility to support children as he or she deems appropriate in the exercise of the primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. Many of those children will, in fact, already be covered by Section 8A because they are living away from home and/or are in receipt of local authority services. For example, children on remand to youth detention accommodation are treated as looked-after children.
	For children in custody, there are already adequate complaints, grievance and disciplinary systems in place, which the noble Lord will be familiar with, in young offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes to enable young people to resolve issues relating to their detention. Advocacy services are also provided in YOIs, STCs and SCHs to assist young people in navigating the complaints, grievance or disciplinary systems. Advocacy is provided by Barnardo’s in young offender institutions and secure training centres, with local arrangements in place in secure children’s homes. If a young person is not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint, they are able to refer the issue to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, the statutory monitor or the local authority.
	Not extending the advice and assistance role to children in custody does not mean that the commissioner cannot investigate matters within the juvenile secure estate as part of a wider investigation. In fact, the commissioner has already done so—for example, with the commissioner’s inquiry into the support available in the youth justice system for young people with mental health issues. So far as the Children’s Commissioner looking at new SEN support in custody is concerned, the key plank of these reforms is to make it clear that the Secretary of State cannot direct the Children’s Commissioner. However, if he or she wishes to consider the SEN reforms, he or she is of course able to do so.
	The introduction of guardians for trafficked children alongside those already working in the interests of the child is not the most effective way to tackle local problems. Where local systems are not working as they should to support the best interests of trafficked children, we need to address the causes of any problems, not bypass them. However, the Home Secretary has announced the trial of independent advocates to provide specialist support to child victims of human trafficking, and we look forward to seeing the results of this in due course.
	The government amendments in this group, Amendments 59C, 59D, 59E and 64B, respond to concerns that were raised by noble Lords in Committee. In Committee we had an interesting debate about how the Bill defines children’s rights, specifically those rights included in the UNCRC. I set out that our expectation is that the commissioner should consider all children’s rights—those set out not only in the UNCRC but in domestic law and other international treaties that the UK has ratified. However, I recognise that the UNCRC is
	central to the children’s rights agenda, so I am proposing through Amendment 59C that the commissioner should have “particular” regard to the UNCRC when considering what constitutes children’s rights. This clearly emphasises the importance of the convention to the discourse on children’s rights, but still allows the commissioner to consider rights contained in other international treaties or domestic law.
	In Committee there was a broad consensus that children’s views should influence the work of the commissioner. However, it was clear that some noble Lords wanted to add further provision that would require the commissioner to summarise in the annual report to Parliament how he or she had consulted and subsequently taken account of children’s views. Having considered this further, I have decided to table Amendments 59D and 59E to this effect, which I hope will be welcomed. In addition, I have tabled a technical amendment, Amendment 64B, that will allow the provisions relating to the commissioner to come into effect on 1 April of this year. This will allow the reformed OCC to come into effect from the start of the financial year, and ensure that the transfer of staff and other assets from the office of the Children’s Rights Director can go ahead on that date as planned.
	As I set out in response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I hope that the generally permissive nature of the Children’s Commissioner provisions in the Bill, the assurances that have been given and the changes that we plan to make to the framework agreement have combined to provide noble Lords with reassurances that the independence of the commissioner is strongly protected. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 59A. I have also set out the reasons for resisting the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and hope that he understands the rationale for doing so and is persuaded not to press them. I hope that noble Lords will also support the government amendments that I have set out.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very thorough response. I am particularly pleased to hear that he says that there will be “particular regard” to the UNCRC and that there will be consultation with children enshrined in the law.
	On the query about “affirmation on independence” and the lack of “prohibition”, maybe we should look at the wording. Maybe it is just a matter of words, but it is not how I read it in the first place. I accept that the Children’s Commissioner cannot realistically cope with individual cases. That would be far too big a burden and would, as the Minister said, “hamper” the effectiveness of the office. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will correct me if I am wrong, but he and I are saying that we see the Children’s Commissioner as a guardian and monitor of children’s rights as well as a champion. We shall see about the issue of the appointment. I hope that the Minister will take note of our concerns on this.
	I forgot to ask the Minister about the timetable for this appointment; I do not know if he can reply now or write to me and other Lords.

Lord Nash: I will write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 59A withdrawn.
	Clause 86: Primary function of the Children’s Commissioner
	Amendment 59B not moved.
	Amendment 59C
	 Moved by Lord Nash
	59C: Clause 86, page 60, line 2, after “must” insert “, in particular,”
	Amendment 59C agreed.
	Clause 92: Annual reports
	Amendments 59D and 59E
	 Moved by Lord Nash
	59D: Clause 92, page 63, line 9, leave out “involve children” and insert “consult children or otherwise involve them”
	59E: Clause 92, page 63, line 10, at end insert “, and
	(d) a summary of how the Commissioner has taken into account the results of any such consultation and anything else resulting from involving children in the discharge of his or her functions.”
	Amendments 59D and 59E agreed.
	Clause 93: Children living away from home or receiving social care
	Amendment 59F not moved.
	Amendments 60 to 62 not moved.
	Clause 99: Exclusion or curtailment of other statutory rights to pay
	Amendment 62A
	 Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie
	62A: Clause 99, page 92, line 22, at end insert—
	“(3CA) Regulations may provide for a reduction in the duration of the maternity allowance period as it applies to a woman to be revoked, or to be treated as revoked, subject to prescribed restrictions and conditions.”

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I shall speak also to government Amendments 62B, 62C, 62D and 63A. I shall encapsulate my overview of the amendments in some very brief remarks. There is more that I could say and I am happy to write with more details should noble Lords feel it necessary.
	The amendments will ensure that those who are entitled to statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance or statutory adoption pay are not left without these statutory payments in the event that they have opted
	into the shared parental system, are eligible to withdraw from that system and subsequently decide to do so. These are minor and technical amendments to enable the policy to operate in the way in which it was intended. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendments are necessary and desirable. I beg to move.
	Amendment 62A agreed.
	Amendments 62B to 62D
	 Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie
	62B: Clause 99, page 92, line 23, leave out “(3C)” and insert “(3CA)”
	62C: Clause 99, page 93, line 2, at end insert—
	“(3D) Regulations may provide for a reduction in the duration of the maternity pay period as it applies to a woman to be revoked, or to be treated as revoked, subject to prescribed restrictions and conditions.”
	62D: Clause 99, page 93, line 32, at end insert—
	“(2CA) Regulations may provide for a reduction in the duration of the adoption pay period as it applies to a person to be revoked, or to be treated as revoked, subject to prescribed restrictions and conditions.”
	Amendments 62B to 62D agreed.
	Amendment 63 not moved.
	Clause 103: Rate of statutory adoption pay
	Amendment 63A
	 Moved by Lord Nash
	63A: Clause 103, page 98, line 16, leave out “(2C)” and insert “(2CA)”
	Amendment 63A agreed.
	Amendment 63AZA
	 Moved by Baroness Howarth of Breckland
	63AZA: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause—
	“Parental bereavement leave
	In the Employment Rights Act 1996, after section 57A insert—
	“57AA Parental bereavement leave
	(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee who satisfies specified conditions—
	(a) as to duration of employment, and
	(b) as to relationship with a child,
	to be absent from work on leave under this section in consequence of the death of a child.
	(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall secure that, where an employee has a right to leave under this section, he or she is entitled to a leave period of at least 2 weeks.
	(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall secure that an employee who exercises his or her right to leave under this section—
	(a) is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as may be prescribed, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied if he or she had not been absent,
	(b) is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as may be prescribed, by any obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1)), and
	(c) is entitled to return from leave to a job of a prescribed kind.
	(4) In subsection (3)(a) “terms and conditions of employment” includes—
	(a) matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under his or her contract of employment; and
	(b) terms and conditions about remuneration.”.”

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, in a few weeks, I will join families and children celebrating 20 years of the work of the charity Little Hearts Matter. The team provides advice, information and emotional support where a child has been born with half a heart, but the fact that we have surviving young people with us is significant. A little over 20 years ago, they all died. The survival of these young people is cause for celebration and recognition of the research, surgery and care developed over the years.
	However, children continue to die because of the complexity of the condition, as they do with many other conditions. Many of our members who have lost their children due to complex congenital heart disease after a long struggle through treatment struggle thereafter because of the present regulations. There is little more devastating than the loss of your child. It creates emotional, mental and physical effects which overwhelm parents. To be told that you are entitled to only three days’ bereavement leave from your employer is neither caring nor supportive. There is much to organise and it cannot be good for the employer, as a bereaved parent is unlikely to be functioning at a normal level.
	Let me briefly give two examples. The first concerns the father of a three year-old boy who died following complex surgery. The father had saved up his annual leave to be with his son through the surgery. After the operation, he stayed by his son’s bedside for two weeks as he slowly died. This used up all his leave. When his son died, the father rang his employer to explain and was told that he had to be back in three days. The funeral had not been organised at that point. The father lost his job because he could not return to work. He needed to be with his family.
	In a second case, a father had known that his baby would be born with a complex heart condition. He had organised leave for the delivery and immediate surgical period, but his son died some weeks after the surgery. His employer told him that he had had enough leave and, as he had known his son was going to die, he would expect him back in three days having organised everything. His GP issued him a sick note to allow him more time to be with his wife, which his employer contested. The stress of fighting his employer, grieving for his son and supporting his wife created long-term illness.
	Of course, this is not the whole story. There are many employers who support and help their employees through this difficult time but it is a lottery not a right. Relying on employers to be caring and supportive of their employees is clearly not enough. The law does not support the bereaved. With the increased recognition
	that parents have a right to be with their children after birth, it seems extraordinary that we do not extend the same thoughtfulness to parents who have lost a child. I realise that there might be nervousness that this could be a burden on business. Thankfully, the numbers affected are relatively small and we emphasise again that many employers act with compassion and sympathy and give time to their employees. However, where this is not the case, the impact on parents is huge.
	This amendment would give the Government powers to regulate for statutory leave for bereaved parents. We hope this is reasonable—it allows the Government an opportunity to consult on the detail and to ensure the implementation is not burdensome but compassionate. It would make a huge difference to that small minority of parents who find themselves treated without compassion at some of the most difficult times of their lives. I beg to move.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment and for doing so so movingly. I am also grateful to the Minister for meeting with me last week to discuss this issue and, in particular, I am grateful to those who have been part of the campaign, led by Lucy Herd, for their support and for carrying on offering heartbreaking personal stories to illustrate the need for this measure.
	Just today, Lucy received an e-mail that said:
	“My only son died last Tuesday (7th Jan) and my company policy states that I only receive two days in compassionate leave, the rest has to come out of my annual leave allowance. I think it should be law for people who have lost an immediate family member to have as much time off as they need”.
	Lucy also told me of Rhian, who had been in touch through Twitter. About a year after Lucy’s son Jack died, Rhian’s 18 month-old, George, choked on the food that his dad was feeding him at home. Sadly George died. His father was distraught but was given only two days’ compassionate leave by his employer. He committed suicide seven days later. Rhian has now lost her son and her husband. That is a particularly tragic story, but it is worth noting that 90% of parents who lose a child also suffer relationship breakdown. Many parents lose a partner as well as a child.
	These stories and many more like them show there is a problem. I read out different examples in Committee, showing that the NHS can be a remarkably uncompassionate employer at times. Those at the top of these big organisations will be appalled at how their rules can sometimes be applied. I heard today of a middle-ranking employee of one of our big high street banks who rang his boss the evening that his wife died following an illness. His boss was very sorry but there was a vitally important meeting the next day and could he please make sure he was in by 6.30 am.
	In this regard, the Minister’s offer of guidance would be helpful. Many large employers are applying previous guidance that advised giving up to three days for compassionate leave. If ACAS can involve people such as Lucy and organisations such as the CBI in drawing up the guidance, I am sure it will have an
	impact with those employers who want to do the right thing but need advice on what that is—the vast majority of employers.
	Can the noble Viscount assure me that guidance will suggest flexibility about taking a minimal amount of leave of, say, the two weeks that I propose? Can he also give me an assurance about what he will do to ensure that public sector employers follow the guidance? Will he write to other departments and ask them to ensure that they and those they influence, such as agencies, councils, schools and hospitals, also follow the guidance?
	I worry about a small minority of employers who will not follow guidance. There are rogue employers and rogue managers who are either so pressured that they have lost their compassion or never had it in the first place. They also need to comply with any guidance. That is why I want the Minister to agree to take these powers to consult and come back with regulations to ensure that we can all have reasonable time off after the death of a child as a right.
	Your Lordships may ask: why would the Government not want to take those powers? Would it be unpopular? As I said in Committee, there is public support. An opinion poll in the autumn found that, when asked whether there should be a national guaranteed minimum entitlement to bereavement leave for a close family member, 70.8% agreed. “Ah, but would it not be an unpopular burden on business?”, you may ask. Yesterday, I met the CBI to discuss this narrow measure about bereavement leave for parents. It was a positive meeting. Although the CBI is concerned to get the scope and structure right, it is happy to engage in that debate on the back of the amendment and can see the in-principle case to do so. It does not oppose it in principle. So business would not complain if the Minister accepted the amendment and then consulted on what form the secondary legislation should take.
	Finally, I must raise one other issue that I would be grateful if the Minister would raise with his DWP colleagues. I have talked about time off work following a bereavement, but not everyone who suffers the loss of a child is in work. Will the Minister please also consider those on benefits? Can he ensure that in that circumstance there is compassionate leave from the conditionality attached to benefit, where you have to be actively looking for work?
	Lucy also said to me today that when Jack died, there was a period when his bedroom was really important as a part of grieving—to have his place, his things, his smell. Both of us have been asked to get a reassurance that housing benefit will not be cut in those circumstances because of the application of the bedroom tax.
	To conclude, this is our case. No one speaks against it, and there is public support, no business opposition and an overwhelming moral, compassionate case. People get 12 months or more following a birth, three days following a death. That cannot be right, and I plead with the Minister at this late hour to put his prepared notes to one side and take the time between now and Third Reading to talk to the CBI and others to see whether taking those powers to regulate in future on top of guidance is now the right thing to do.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to return to this important issue on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, has spoken passionately about this matter at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and again this evening. I have been deeply moved and saddened by the distressing accounts that I have heard of employees not receiving the support from their employers that they needed at such a difficult time. We have heard more tragic examples this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight.
	Losing a loved one is always a difficult experience. Losing a child must cause a grief that is beyond words. It is of course right that employees are able and feel comfortable to take time off to grieve in those awful circumstances. Grief is extremely personal, and everybody copes with the challenges that it brings in different ways. Individual employers are best placed to respond to the varied needs of grieving employees in a sensitive and appropriate way. Fortunately, as has been pointed out this evening, many employers are understanding and compassionate, enabling individuals to take all the time off that they need when they need it. However, as I acknowledged during Grand Committee, this is sadly not always the case.
	At present, there is very little advice and support available to employers to help them to develop company policies or approaches to time off for bereaved employees. This lack of advice can mean that employers, particularly small employers who have no experience of bereavement in the workplace, are confronted with a situation that they do not know how to deal with. As a result, they may inadvertently fail to give their employees the compassion and support that they need at what is, we can all agree, a particularly vulnerable time.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that employers have access to the right advice and information to facilitate good employment relationships with all their employees. When this issue was debated during Grand Committee, I gave a commitment that the Government would bring forward comprehensive guidance to support employers in meeting the needs of bereaved employees in the workplace. I am pleased to be able to announce today that ACAS has agreed to draw on its wealth of experience in workplace relations to develop guidance that will support employers in delivering their approach to bereavement. It is, of course, essential that we harness the knowledge and experience of expert organisations to get this guidance right so that it can support employers and employees in the most effective way. For this reason, ACAS will work in close partnership with Cruse, the leading national charity for bereaved people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and other expert organisations during the development and refinement of the guidance. The first round-table meeting with these organisations is scheduled for as soon as 5 February.
	ACAS intends to road-test the draft guidance in a series of seminars with employers around the regions to ensure that the guidance is relevant and adds value. We expect the guidance to be published this summer and I encourage noble Lords who are in touch with organisations that have experience of these issues, and who would like to be involved in reviewing the draft
	guidance, to get in touch with my officials. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and I had conversations about this last week. This guidance will be comprehensive, covering the existing statutory entitlement to time off for dependants as well as providing advice and support about what is best practice in this area. It is essential that employers, as well as employees, are aware of the statutory provisions that are available. This will be made clear in the guidance.
	As I mentioned, I recently met the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to discuss the Government’s approach to this issue and to understand better whether there is additional support that we could offer. I felt that we had a very productive discussion, during which he brought to my attention the fact that many of the parents who had reported being treated unsympathetically by their employers were, in fact, employed in the public sector. Since then, my department has made contact with employer groups in this sector, including NHS Employers and those in Civil Service employee policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, will be pleased to hear. We plan to work with them to develop and find ways of promoting the best practice guidance that ACAS will produce. We also intend to work with business stakeholders such as the CBI and the CIPD to ensure that this guidance reaches businesses and to encourage them to review their company policies accordingly.
	Bereavement is a particularly sensitive issue and to be comprehensive, this guidance will need to cover a broad range of issues and situations. I am confident that the guidance produced by ACAS will be of excellent quality. I hope that this is some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. It is, however, essential that we keep the effectiveness of guidance and how it is being applied in the workplace under review. This is what the Government fully intend to do. I understand the sentiment behind this amendment, and I believe that it is important that all individuals are able to take time off to grieve when they suffer the loss of a loved one. However, I think that a flexible and sensitive approach, tailored to the needs of individual employees, is what is needed at such a difficult time. It is not feasible to legislate to accommodate the vastly different needs of individuals, which are often the result of different personal circumstances, family relationships and religious observations. For this reason I believe that guidance, combined with working with our key partners to encourage employers to adopt best practice in their workplaces, is the best approach.
	The noble Lord, Lord Knight, raised a number of questions and I will endeavour to write to him with answers, including the question that he raised on the linkage with the DWP. In the mean time, I hope that noble Lords are reassured by these commitments and will agree to withdraw their amendment.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I believe we are deeply reassured and very grateful to the Minister. I am only sorry that I was not able to take part in the earlier discussions. As you know, there were clashes with other discussions about other parts of the children Bill at which I had to be present. I have been in close touch with the noble Lord, Lord Knight. We are very
	reassured, indeed grateful, that this matter has moved at such speed. I am just grateful that I will be able to take back the news to the families I work with that something will happen and that we will not hear such tragic stories about families receiving no compassion at some of the most difficult times of their lives. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 63AZA withdrawn.
	Amendment 63AZB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 63AZC (in substitution for Amendment 63AZB)
	 Moved by Baroness Lister of Burtersett
	63AZC: After Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
	“Review of care leave
	The Secretary of State must, within the scheduled review of parental leave, make arrangements—
	(a) to conduct research into the current labour market outcomes of carers, and
	(b) assess the need for further types of leave arrangements for employees in the United Kingdom, in addition to those that currently exist, with a view to helping families combine care for a disabled child or adult with work, and
	(c) for a report on the outcome to be produced and published.”

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, in moving Amendment 63AZC, I return to this question because, when we debated it in Grand Committee, it was rather lost in the important debate on kinship care. The amendment does not ask for very much. It does not require the Government to introduce leave for workers with caring responsibilities for a disabled, ill or frail loved one; it simply calls for a review of the need for such arrangements. As Carers UK argues in a recent report making the case for carers leave:
	“The evidence base for supporting working carers is growing, and it is compelling”.
	More than 3 million people combine working with unpaid care for a loved one and the numbers are predicted to grow as the population ages. The danger is that, without the safety valve of a right to a few days’ leave a year, carers will either reduce their hours or give up paid work altogether. A Carers UK survey found that two in five carers who had already done so were around £10,000 to £20,000 a year worse off. The public expenditure cost of carers giving up paid work is estimated at £1.3 billion a year. A strong business case has also been made. As the task and finish group set up by Employers for Carers and the Department of Health states in its final report,
	“the issue of supporting carers to remain in work is not only a problem, but also an economic opportunity. Supporting carers to remain in work can bring considerable benefits to carers themselves, employers and the wider economy”.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister referred to the existing right to request flexible working and to time off for emergencies. But these existing provisions, helpful as they are, do not cover the kind of situation that this amendment is designed to address. This is not about
	emergencies as such but for more everyday situations, such as taking someone to a medical appointment or looking after them on discharge from hospital or during chemotherapy. The leave also needs to be paid, if it is to be of real help. At present, all too often carers use up annual leave, which they probably need more than most. A combination of the stresses created by combining care and paid work and no holiday leave could be one burden too many.
	Cross-national evidence shows that care leave in various forms is becoming increasingly common elsewhere. I will spare noble Lords the examples, given the lateness of the hour, but will simply say that we are in danger of becoming a laggard if we refuse even to start investigating the case for such leave.
	In Grand Committee, I quoted from a moving statement made by Mr Christopher Jeffery, whose wife was told she was shirking when she took agreed time off to collect him from hospital. She ended up having a breakdown because of the total lack of support she received and Mr Jeffery told the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Carers that it made him feel like a burden to her. I applaud Mr Jeffery’s determination to campaign on behalf of carers generally to ensure they have a right to take time off and not be treated in the way that his wife was.
	I also said that I believe we are at the beginning of the road of a campaign whose time has come. Common sense, the business case, social justice and plain compassion and human decency are all on its side. Moreover, so is public opinion. Nine out of 10 respondents to a Carers UK/YouGov survey last year supported a right to a short period of time off work to care.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to take this modest amendment away and tidy it up in order to bring it back as a government amendment at Third Reading, or even simply give a commitment on the record to instigate such a review without delay. I say without delay because the amendment links the review with the one that we have already been promised into parental leave, but there is no reason why it should wait until that review is undertaken. The Minister has already helpfully committed the Government to a more immediate study of the labour market attachment of kinship and friendship carers of children. I am simply asking for a parallel study of carers’ labour market attachment and of the options available to support it through some form of leave provision.
	For all the reasons that I have given, there is a degree of urgency about this. The Government have an opportunity here to take the credit for having opened the door to the implementation of carers’ leave. This Bill, together with the Care Bill, already marks an important step forward for carers’ rights. Let us now build on that and make it a real turning point. I beg to move.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, as the clock reads midnight, I will say very little in support of my noble friend’s excellent moving of this, as she says, modest amendment, except to say that going without any time off for possibly years on end may push carers to breaking point. When their leave runs out or they
	feel that they cannot cope any more, many employees feel that they have no choice but to give up work altogether. As one parent carer wrote:
	“My current manager is very supportive within the leave/time off rules, but I have still struggled in the last 12 months, my leave has been used on reactive odd days/half days due to medical appointments & supporting my daughter’s condition & I only have a few days left for the next few months of my leave year so I worry that I will not have enough time & will be forced to give up work”.
	A statutory entitlement to care leave would help many carers juggle their caring responsibilities with work in a sustainable and manageable way, making them more productive and less stressed, and saving businesses and the economy money in the long run.
	It is a source of personal disappointment to me that, as my noble friend said, we are falling behind in international comparisons, given that carers in the UK have always been at the forefront. We have always been leaders in the recognition of carers, and successive Governments can take credit for that. It would be a great pity if we fell behind in this and did not keep up with international colleagues such as Australia, Belgium, Germany and Japan, which are all putting carers’ leave in place. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to agree to this amendment.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, very briefly indeed, I lend my support to this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said when she moved it so eloquently, it is a modest amendment, asking for a review in this very important area.
	I do not intend to detain the House any longer—other than to say that from 2017 the number of older and disabled people needing long-term care is predicted to outstrip the number of family members able to provide it. Given that, with an ageing population, we are expecting people to work for longer, they are also going to find themselves trying to care for longer, with more family members and loved ones with more, increasingly complex, long-term conditions. Against this backdrop, it is essential that we have the review that this amendment talks about and see what more we can do to help people who are trying to face the challenge of both working longer and caring longer.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, very briefly, I thought that both my noble friends made very coherent arguments in favour of this and raised some very important issues. We heard yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that he was going to do some more work on parent carers, so obviously some of these issues around carers are already going to come back at Third Reading. There will be ongoing discussions around those issues and I therefore urge the Minister, perhaps in the context of those discussions, to widen it out a little more and consider the issues that have been raised in this amendment at the same time, so that we can bring all these issues back at Third Reading and have a full debate at that stage. I hope that he will consider that seriously.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I appreciated the interesting and moving speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Pitkeathley, and the
	brief intervention by my noble friend Lady Tyler focusing on the challenges that parents of disabled children and carers of disabled adults face in balancing their care responsibilities with their working lives.
	Being a carer can have a significant impact on an individual’s life. The Government recognise that caring for an individual with a disability can be both physically and emotionally draining. Flexible and supportive working arrangements can make a significant difference to a carer’s life by ensuring that work does not add to the carer’s stress levels. This is why it is important that carers are able to adjust the way they work to allow them to stay in work, because work can be important for a carer’s well-being and income and for maintaining social contacts. As a nation, we cannot afford to lose the talent and skills of carers from the workplace. The Government recognise that caring for disabled people can be a sudden change for an individual. It may be challenging and take a great deal of commitment from an individual to deliver the care and support that is needed.
	I reassure noble Lords that my department regularly collects and reviews data on carers to ensure that we are providing the right framework to allow them to participate and thrive in the labour market. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills conducts the workplace employment relations survey and the work-life balance series of surveys which look at the effectiveness of labour market participation policies, such as the right to request flexible working, in supporting carers. The Office for National Statistics also uses the census to analyse carers’ labour market experiences.
	These surveys and the evidence they provide informed the recent report on carers from the cross-government task and finish group on carers. This report highlighted the importance of flexible working and recommended that government should continue to promote the benefits of flexible working to employers. All the recommendations of this report have been accepted and are currently being implemented. An additional duty on government to conduct this research and review the provisions for carers is unnecessary because this work is already under way and government regularly collects and reviews this information.
	The Government’s approach is to create a fair, flexible and efficient labour market which supports and encourages participation from all. The strategy for carers is to ensure that we create the right framework to allow them to balance their work and caring responsibilities. Clause 113 requires the Government to review the effectiveness of the right to request flexible working against the policy objectives. Supporting carers to remain in work is a key objective of the policy, and I can confirm that this review will include assessing the effectiveness of the right to request flexible working in supporting carers to participate in the labour market.
	I understand the noble Baronesses’ intentions behind this amendment, and I hope I have reassured them that the Government are acting to support carers of disabled children and adults to remain in work and are continually reviewing this support to ensure that it meets the needs of carers.
	Just before I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, I wish to change the tone slightly by stating that we have almost reached the end of Report, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Nash, I will take this opportunity to thank everyone who has spoken today and during earlier sessions on Report. We have had many thoughtful, well informed and constructive debates on a very broad range of issues, and I have welcomed the thorough approach that noble Lords have taken to scrutinising each part of this wide-ranging Bill. I hope that we can address the very few outstanding issues. I also thank the Bill team and all the officials who have supported me, my noble friend Lord Nash and colleagues across different departments for their work.
	In the mean time, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for speaking in support of this amendment at this extremely late hour. I am grateful to the Minister. I thought he made a rather compelling case for my amendment when he spoke about the importance of supporting carers. He talked about enabling them to participate and thrive, but the trouble is that the present situation does not enable them to participate and thrive. I was ultimately very disappointed by the Minister’s response because it is not about simply collecting statistics, but about having a formal, structured review of the case that other countries have now accepted. Therefore I will, of course, withdraw the amendment, but I suspect that it will not be the last amendment which tries to make this case; we will table such an amendment to any legislation that offers the opportunity to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 63AZC withdrawn.
	Clause 114: Orders and regulations
	Amendments 63AA and 63B
	 Moved by Lord Nash
	63AA: Clause 114, page 121, line 35, at end insert—
	“( ) regulations under section (Application of Part to detained persons)(3),”
	63B: Clause 114, page 121, line 36, after “55(1),” insert—
	“(ba) regulations under subsection (6), (8), (9) or (10) of section (Regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products),
	(bb) regulations under subsection (11) of that section which amend, repeal or revoke any provision of an enactment within the meaning of that section,”
	Amendments 63AA and 63B agreed.
	Clause 118: Commencement
	Amendments 64 to 65
	 Moved by Lord Nash
	64: Clause 118, page 123, line 2, at end insert—
	“(1A) Section (Contact between prescribed persons and adopted person’s relatives)—
	(a) so far as it relates to England, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by order, and
	(b) so far as it relates to Wales, comes into force on such day as the Welsh Ministers appoint by order.”
	64ZA: Clause 118, page 123, line 5, after “82,” insert “(Application of suspension etc powers to establishments and agencies in England),”
	64A: Clause 118, page 123, line 5, leave out “and 84” and insert “, 84 and (Extension of licensing of child performances to children under 14)”
	64B: Clause 118, page 123, line 6, at end insert—
	“( ) Part 6 comes into force on 1 April 2014.”
	65: Clause 118, page 123, line 9, after “subsection” insert “(1A),”
	Amendments 64 to 65 agreed.
	Amendment 65A had been renumbered as Amendment 64A.
	Clause 119: Short title and extent
	Amendments 65B and 65C
	 Moved by Lord Nash
	65B: Clause 119, page 123, line 18, at end insert—
	“(3A) Section (Regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products) extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.”
	65C: Clause 119, page 123, line 24, at end insert “, subject to subsection (8).
	(8) Subsection (7) does not apply to the repeal made by section (Extension of licensing of child performances to children under 14), which extends to England and Wales only.”
	Amendments 65B and 65C agreed.
	In the Title
	Amendment 66
	 Moved by Lord Nash
	66: In the Title, line 2, after “needs” insert “or disabilities”
	Amendment 66 agreed.

House adjourned at 12.10 am.